70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”
He replied, “You say that I am.”
71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
He replied, “You say that I am.”
71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
Only the Emperor Augustus could be named "God, Son of God", hence Pilate had to fear any messianist claiming to be the "Son of God".
The title of "Son of God" is theocratic, hence anti-imperial. Just as the "Golgotha" works as the anti-Capitolium. Remember about Adam Winn's view about Mark as anti-Imperial propaganda.
By introducing the Barabbas episode, the Gospels have removed from Jesus the claim of being "Son of Father", by inventing de facto another Jesus who claimed the embarrassing title, in his same name ("Bar-Abbas"), of "Son of Father".
Since the implication is that the historical Jesus was an anti-Roman seditionist, the Christian scholar Etienne Nodet is obliged to assume that Barabbas existed really as a rabble-rouser released by Pilate and distinct (sic) fom Jesus.