What you have given as facts, are not facts at all but mere theories based upon speculation. Some might even call them fantasies.

It is true that there are some textual variants of Matthew 27:16 and 17 that have Barabbas identified as Jesus although these variants have been disputed as early as Origen. It does not really matter, however, because “Jesus” was a common name during this time. The name “Jesus” is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew name “Joshua” (a name given to several individuals in the Old Testament). To say all people named Jesus are the same person is the same as saying everyone named John Smith is the same person. It is quite a stretch. It is clear from the text of Matthew and the other gospels that Pilate is offering a choice between two different people. Note even with Jesus inserted it still sounds like two people: “So when the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you? [Jesus] Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” (Matthew 27:17). One Jesus is identified by Barabbas the other is identified by being called the Christ (which is the Greek term for Messiah and is used interchangeably (cf. John 1:41). In addition, although Barabbas literally means “son of the father,” its common usage and the meaning was “son of the teacher.” Since the gospels clearly make a distinction between Barabbas and the Christ, and no other source talks of Barabbas, there is no reason to conclude that Barabbas and the Christ are one and the same.

As to the division of the 10 tribes, the facts are inconsistent with your theories. First of all, the tribe of Benjamin–from which both King Saul and Saul of Tarsus came–stayed with the tribe of Judah and the line of David (cf. 1 Kings 12:21-24). The two tribes can hardly be counted as arch-enemies or nemeses. Secondly, the division between the 10 northern tribes and the two southern tribes was removed through the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities (cf. Ezekiel 37:15-23). There is no reason to think Saul’s persecution of Christians was because he was against the physical line of David. Instead, it was as Paul said: a result of living strictly according to the Pharisees’ teachings that led him to persecute Christians (Acts 26:2-11). Third, Jesus had no intention of ruling as a king physically (cf. John 6:15, 18:36). With these facts in mind, little of what you said makes any sense at all.