I wish I could like only specific parts of your post, because what? Where is the evidence of this?
Nothing specific, but consider this first...
Changes to the Bible through the ages are being studied by New Orleans scholars | NOLA.com
Remember, even though many of the oldest books in the New Testament are contemporary to the time, they were passed from church to church, and changes crept in along the way, either accidental or on purpose.
It always struck me when reading the New Testament is that it shows strongly that it is indeed a Hebrew cultural book, that then had a layer of "Roman-ness" laid over the top of it. And specifically the obvious attempt to shift the blame of the crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews.
In the oldest extant copies, the "Betrayer" is simply called "the Betrayer", or "the son of Simon". But as the Gospels moved from Judea and into the Roman world, things started to change. the Betrayer picked up a first name (Judas), as well as a place name (Iscariot, meaning "man of Kerioth - also the name of a zealot band who considered themselves the return of the Maccabees). And yes, these names did come in much later.
Then you had another Judas who was named, who's name in Mark and Matthew changed for some reason to Thaddeus.
Also remember that the newly formed Roman Catholic Church placed heavy emphasis upon the virgin birth. Even going to the extent of trying to erase his brothers.
The New Testament (when looked through Jewish eyes) is fairly typical of other Jewish writings of the era (compare it to Maccabees I and II, circa 100 BCE) and there are many similarities. Especially in the symbolism.
Like the murderer who was released instead of Jesus. Matthew calls him a "notorious prisoner", Mark and Luke listed him as a person who started a riot, John called him the "bandit". And if you noticed earlier I addressed Jesus as "Joshua bar Joseph", which is the name he would have actually gone by. Joshua was his actual first name, bar means "son of", Joseph was his father's name. "Joshua son of Joseph".
Barabbas is called in the earlier texts "Joshua bar Abbas", which means "Joshua son of the Father", translated into Greek as "Jesus Barabbas". Then since there is only one Jesus, simply Barabbas.
I can continue on for pages, but this is about 1900+ year old documents, and ultimately it is a faith issue. A lot of things in the New Testament contradict themselves, and mean one thing in one book, something else in another one. And if you doubt this, just ask yourself how Judas died. Did he throw the coins back at the Priests and hang himself? Did he buy a field then have his guts burst upon the field? Non-canonical books of the era also have him being stoned by the other Apostles or even crushed by a chariot.
Other things not in the oldest scriptures is the thirty pieces of silver, nor is this known to part of Jewish culture. Nor is the Roman Governor releasing a prisoner on Passover.