Jesus can be with (μετά) the beasts without being a beast himself (Mark 1.13), a bridegroom can be with (μετά) his attendants without being an attendant himself (Mark 2.19), and a teacher can be with (μετά) his disciples without being a disciple himself (Mark 14.14). So I would say that it is grammatically possible for Barabbas to be with (μετά) the insurrectionists without actually being an insurrectionist himself (Mark 15.7).Giuseppe wrote:A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.
(Mark 15:7)
In Greek:
ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν.
Question: is it possible to read the passage as meaning possibly strictu sensu that only ''the insurrectionists had committed murder in the uprising'', but not Barabbas, too ?
I do not think that the grammar at all rules out his being an insurrectionist, however. Jacob, for example, strove with both (μετά) God and men, and he was presumably a man himself, though presumably not also a god (Genesis 32.28 LXX).
Whether we think of Barabbas as one of the insurrectionists or not will apparently have to come from context and other considerations, not from the grammar.