Yes, and I think there is more that can be said about Mark's choice ---
The author of GMark had no other reasonable choice than Pilate --- that is, without throwing Paul and his letters under the bus.
Mark imagined how a story of Paul’s heavenly JC figure might play-out, with the heavenly spirit having come in the likeness of man in Judea in relatively recent times --- and with that JC figure getting cross-wise with the Judean authorities and getting suspended on a stake to fulfill the salvific and redemptive death.
Only the Romans had the appropriate authority to execute someone in the context of Mark’s tale, and suspension on a wooden stake until death would not have been an unusual mode of punishment.
As a Paulinist knowledgeable of Paul’s letters, the author of GMark wrote a prequel to Paul, and of Paul’s backstory as found in the letters. For example, Mark’s most prominent disciples throughout his tale were younger versions of Paul’s Jerusalem leadership group, those that Paul claimed as his predecessors in the faith.
If one takes Paul’s backstory and timeline as given in Galatians, with just three very reasonable assumptions, Pilate is the only reasonable choice.
Assumptions ---
Pilate is said to have established a tradition of releasing a prisoner for the Passover (Mark 15:6) --- it would take at least 3 years for a practice to become a tradition. So the execution of JC in Mark’s tale would have been at least three years after the beginning of Pilate’s tenure in Judea.
Then allowing 1 to 3 years for Judean assemblies to form that revered a martyred JC figure.
And then allowing 1 to 4 more years for Paul to harass those assemblies that he claimed existed in Judea (Galatians 1:13), and for God to grant Paul grace and reveal in Paul the Son, and for Paul’s sojourn in Arabia (Galatians 1:15-17).
Pilate is said to have established a tradition of releasing a prisoner for the Passover (Mark 15:6) --- it would take at least 3 years for a practice to become a tradition. So the execution of JC in Mark’s tale would have been at least three years after the beginning of Pilate’s tenure in Judea.
Then allowing 1 to 3 years for Judean assemblies to form that revered a martyred JC figure.
And then allowing 1 to 4 more years for Paul to harass those assemblies that he claimed existed in Judea (Galatians 1:13), and for God to grant Paul grace and reveal in Paul the Son, and for Paul’s sojourn in Arabia (Galatians 1:15-17).
After that it’s just arithmetic. “Then after 3 years” for Paul’s visit with Cephas (Galatians 1:18). And “Then after 14 years” for Paul’s visit with the Pillars in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1). It’s not entirely clear if these are inclusive as a total of 14 years, or additive as a total of 17 --- either way works here. This brings one to the time of the composition of the letter Galatians.
As a dedicated Paulinist, Mark would have known, at least approximately, when Paul wrote his letters. When writing his tale --- so as not to screw-over Paul and Paul’s backstory --- I think Mark counted backwards in time to determine the best chronological setting. The tenure of Pilate can be seen as a clear winner.
Of course, there is no adequately clear and reliable information in Paul’s letters to date them more precisely beyond a rather wide, and generally unhelpful, timespan. But we can reverse Mark’s process and count forward from the range of Pilate’s tenure in Judea. And the conventional dating of Galatian falls within the range obtained with such an exercise.
I think this exercise lends support to ---
Mark as a Paulinist knowledgeable of Paul’s letters.
The conventional dating of Paul’s letters, and
Provides a solution for “why Pilate” in Mark’s tale.
And these solutions can be derived without the need for an historical 1st century (CE) JC figure, and without the use of the later legends in Acts.
