https://archive.org/stream/newtestament ... e_djvu.txt
Unfortunately, I don't find a way to access to this article.
But I wonder if a case may be made supporting this point.
In particular, the words of Pilate raise a suspicion:
See how many things they are accusing you of.
Jesus was not accused of «many things», according to Mark 14, but definitely of only one thing: for the his Messianic claim (see 14:62).
...
Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
....
The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
They all condemned him as worthy of death.
This means that Jesus was not accused, at the end of the trial by the sinedrites and before the trial by Pilate, of destroying the temple, etc.
Hence, how can the our text explain what are these «many things» , when the final reason to decide the death of Jesus was only «the» his blasphemy?
This may be a clue of editorial fatigue: the author of the Pilate episode was not the same autor of Mark 14. But then why did he insist that Jesus was accused «of many things» by the Jews?
Because the presumed editor (of an original Mark without Pilate) knew what the Talmudic Jews were saying about Jesus: that he was accused of a lot of sorcery, blasphemy, heresy, robbery, etc. These Talmudic accusations were numerous.
Hence the editor was introducing Pilate in a previous Gospel of Mark (without Pilate), in a time when the Christ was already highly defamed by the kind of accusations found later in Celsus (the his Jew) and in the Talmud.
If it is true that Bar-Kokhba persecuted the Christians, then these accusations were already made by that time.