The problem is your notion that, apparently, urban people are superior the rural, or that the literate to the illiterate. There are points to be made against Christianity, but a constant slamming of its founders for being impoverished and uneducated (and considering Jesus had knowledge backwards and forwards of the OT scriptures, even that is a questionable premise) comes off as very, very arrogant. Besides, you'd be hard-pressed to find a theologian in a higher social position in the 50s or 60s of the Common Era than Paul, who was very literate and well-educated and wrote about a third of the NT. (I'll give you Seneca, but that's about it for that generation).
Jesus appeared to the Jews because he had to. The Messiah was to be a descendant of David, to be born in David's hometown of Bethlehem, to be heralded by Elijah, to begin his ministry at the Mount of Olives to come to Jerusalem via donkey, to "suddenly come to his Temple" and purify the priesthood, etc. Not much time to sail up and down the Yangtze preaching when one has a checklist of Messianic obligations to fulfill.
I think you are being unfair here. What is argued is that Judea at the time of Jesus was
relatively 'uneducated' in comparison to the Greeks and Romans to the West, Roman-Egyptians to the south, the Parthians to the east and the Chinese states further east than that. While it was certainly the crossroads of the era, it wasn't an intellectual powerhouse. Secondly, you always have to remember that anything 'Jesus says' is (as it cannot be proven otherwise) is merely attributed to him. It is therefore said he had knowledge of Jewish prophecy, which any potential cadidate for messiah had to know. Jesus' backstory was retroactively padded out to meet the requirements (which of course didn't meet the requirements for the Jews at that time) and the revisions were somewhat overeager; the 'virgin birth' was a bit overzealous for example. All this only matters if you accept the starting point of the Jewish prophecy as the 'truth.'
As for theologians you mention Paul was on par with Seneca and that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with such prowess at that time. Putting aside non-Greek philosophers that is unfair; Gaius Rufus, Epictetus and others of the Silver Age spring to mind. Furthermore, Paul's background comes entirely from the Acts the historical reliability of which is under question so on what basis is his 'prowess' determined? Gaius Rufus for example argued that women's capacity was as developed as those of men and therefore should be encourgaged to study and participate in theological and philosophical discourse. Paul of course is not as welcoming. Which is the more enlightened view?
Besides, he pilfers from Plato...(ducks)
