I am just saying Giuseppe - be careful when you start behaving like a religious fanatic. The reason religious zealots are reprehensible IMHO is that they aren't engaging the evidence. It's not a fanatical belief in God that is the issue. It is a fanatical belief in anything including some stupid theory by Couchoud.
To speak specifically about your beloved theory. Here's what I have against it. We know a little bit about the beliefs of certain communities or ways of approaching the gospel tied to specific groups. Yes the evidence isn't perfect. I wish we had a neutral party, a pagan 'scientist' like Aristotle, giving us on the ground reporting about the various Christian groups and their beliefs. But we have some evidence of some value on the subject from interested Church Fathers. Not the best situation but the situation nonetheless.
Those Church Fathers wrote 'reports' mentioning what 'wrong beliefs' were out there. They defined these 'wrong beliefs' in terms of a 'right belief' which was relatively fluid. But nevertheless we know certain things which make the idea that Barabbas was the 'Son of God' who escaped crucifixion difficult to square.
What is this evidence? Well clearly, for instance, Irenaeus reports that an unnamed group read the gospel of Mark as if Christ escaped and Jesus was crucified. How can that square with the Son of God escaping crucifixion and someone named Jesus dying on the Cross. Clearly all the evidence available to us assumes that 'Christ/Chrestos' was the Father. If Christ escaped crucifixion it's hard to square that with someone named Barabbas where barabbas = 'son of the Father ' escaping crucifixion.
Secondly, and along the same lines, we are told that there was an influential group who were so monarchian in their beliefs that enemies within the Church said that they believed that the Father was crucified. However you interpret this evidence having 'barabbas' which equals Son of the Father escape crucifixion doesn't make a lot of sense. In other words, we see a situation once again where 'adoptionist/separationist' readings of the gospel assume that 'Christ' is the Father. The argument that 'no Christ didn't escape' is countered by 'ok he was then crucified.' That's how I read the context. You (or someone else) might have a different interpretation. But I still can't find any ancient group that specifically spoke about the 'Son' escaping crucifixion. It's always a question of the Father-who-is-Christ/Chrestos being crucified which is at issue.
Thirdly, you don't actually report what Jerome said about the variant 'barrabban.' In fact you use it to say that I am an apologist like Justin merely because I am not a zealot for Couchoud odd theories. You make it seem as if Jerome 'thinks' or 'argues for' barrabban and you assist your attack against Jerome by just citing a third hand source rather than Jerome's original testimony. The reality is that Jerome says that barrabban is derived from first hand textual evidence. Writing in his Commentary on Matthew he says:
In the Gospel that is written according to the Hebrews,316 his name is translated as “son of their teacher.”
The same reading is found in the surviving Hebrew Matthew interestingly.
So now as an anti-Semitic 'mythicist' you are left in a bind. There is textual evidence from the fourth century that a gospel read barrabban. What do you do? Of course you will persist in your religious devotion to Couchoud. The Marcionite gospel, Couchoud your 'spiritual high priest' tells must have read barabbas which means 'son of the Father.' Maybe Jerome was reporting an ancient gospel. But it is a Judaizing gospel you would argue I guess. Anything Jewish would necessarily be inferior to something Marcionite - so who cares about Jerome's evidence.
Ah, but you see where your fixation on Couchoud has led you! Like any religious apologist you prefer what a 'modern spiritualist' tells you rather than the evidence itself. Maybe if you had picked up a translation of Tertullian's Against Marcion you had read about the Church Father's reporting. Maybe Couchoud did too. You would have read:
Barabbas, a man of most criminal conduct, is released as though a good man: while Christ, most righteous, is demanded for death as though a murderer. Also two malefactors are crucified along with him, that he might be numbered among the transgressors. [4.42]
Yes! You fist pump in the air. You see, you say, Barabbas is 'a good man' - that is Chrestos. It all fits perfectly ... except for one thing. You didn't check the Latin original. It reads:
Et Barrabas quidem nocentissimus vita ut bonus donatur, Christus vero iustissimus ut homicida morti expostulatur.
What is this? It's not 'son of the father' at all in Marcion. Here too we find the same reading as the Gospel of the Hebrews and Hebrew Matthew. The bottom line is that Couchoud's theory suddenly falls off the rails. Let's see whether you demonstrate yourself to be a scholar or a religious zealot. Do you finally admit defeat?