I’m not sure if you are suggesting that Jesus Barabbas is the same individual as Jesus of Nazareth. Even a casual reading of Matt 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 18 reveals that there are clearly two distinct individuals, one of whom is released and the other executed. The title “father’s son” (the meaning of Barabbas as you note) would certainly be appropriate for Jesus of Nazareth, however the record does not include any indication that this appellation was ever used of him. Whether Barabbas was a given name, a family name, or a nomme de guerre adopted by the man himself, we don’t know.

As to proof of what the man was, we have the records of people who were there (Matthew, John, and Peter) and two other writers who knew the people who were there (Mark and Luke). This may not constitute proof in your mind, but it certainly qualifies as evidence:

• Matthew: “And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.” Matt 27:16
• Mark: “And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas.” Mark 15:7
• Luke: “‘Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas’– a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder.” Luke 23:18-19
• John: “Barabbas was a robber.” (or “insurrectionist” in some translations). John 18:40
• Peter: “You denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you.” Acts 3:14

It doesn’t appear to me that you have not ‘expended’ “lots of speculative energy wondering who Barabbas was”… I have.

“Jesus Barabbas”, written in the the original Greek Gospel according or attributed to Matthew (27:17) but that His name [Jesus] was removed or omitted from the Latin translation (around 384 c.e.) of the same text and most of the subsequent translations thereafter, -leaving us (later people) with only ‘Barabbas’ instead.

‘Barabbas’ is not a proper name or surname per se’ (any more than is “Christ”). It is an Aramaic appellation, -the meaning of which is: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as in ‘the Father of us all’ or, ‘God’, if you will), it is what He was called.

You say, “But the fact is that we have no reason to think that he did anything other than remain a violent political rebel.” I say, The fact is we have no reason to think (acquiesce and/or believe) that He was “a notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist” -without evidence, much less proof.

Respectfully,

Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.