Deut 21:23 and Gal 3:13

[Giuseppe]

22 When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you for possession.

(Deut. 21:22-23)

To quote this verse in Gal 3:13 makes very well the theological point of Paul (not only of an hypothetical Jewish Paul, but also of an hypothetical Gnostic Paul), BUT ONLY if Jesus is buried not the same day of the his crucifixion (the reason is clear: otherwise the ''land'' is not purified by the magic blood of Jesus).

But could that same verse be quoted by the Pillars of Jerusalem?

If the answer is ''yes'', then that verse is surely the unique verse in all the previous scripture (unless the real source is the original AoI) that could have inspired the Jewish Peter to imagine the idea of a crucified Christ.

This is possible only if you read the verse with glasses coloured of ''antithesis'': if the crucified body is not of a criminal, but is of the same Son of God, then ''the land'' is not defiled, but purified by his magic blood.

But there is a logical problem: if the blood of the Son is a blood who purifies, then why must not that body continue to be hung on the tree ? Jesus should not to be buried the same day, in order that the land is really purified by his body being hung on the tree during all the night.

To bury Jesus before the night means to consider his body the body of a criminal, of a sinner.

If ''Mark'' had this goal in mind, by inventing the burial of Jesus during the same day of the his death, then ''Mark'' cannot have satisfied the other requisite: the purification of the land.

Viceversa, if Marcion wrote the first Gospel, then the midrash from Deut 21:23 makes really sense for his theology: Jesus is considered a sinner. --> He is buried before the night. ---> He did not purify the land with the his magic blood.---> the sins of Israel remain all on the people (and with them the rule of the Demiurge on Israel).

There is not expiatory death in Marcionite thelogy.


Under that hypothesis, then that scripture gives a clue of the ''where'' of the crucifixion:

You must not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you for possession.

[Blood]

I don't think Paul or Mark were thinking this out so thoroughly. The purpose of Galatians (like all the Pauline epistles) is simply to decouple the Bible from the Torah, and delegitimize Jews and Judaism. Look at it in context.

3:11 Clearly no one who relies on the Torah (i.e., Jews) is justified before God, because "the righteous will live by faith."

3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Torah by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole." (Paul is here using a part of the Torah to delegitimize the Torah, which is illogical, and he's misunderstanding it. The person is only "under a curse" during the short period while they are hanging from the pole. They are not cursed simply for being on the pole in the first place, which is Paul's contention.)

3:14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. ("We" gentiles -- note that "Paul" is including himself in that category -- are the true inheritors and interpreters of the Bible, not Jews, who are condemned to live by "the curse" of the Torah and Judaism.)

The writer is simply ripping Deu 21:23 out of context to use as another proof-text to show his non-Jewish audience that "Salvation has come to the Gentiles." He had no idea that the removal of the dead criminal's body was the key point of that text.

[Giuseppe]

He had no idea that the removal of the dead criminal's body was the key point of that text.

I disagree partially with this presumed ignorance by Paul of what was the immediate context of Deut. 21:23. But both in a pauline theology and in a proto-gnostic theology, the fact that Jesus was under the God's curse when he was crucified realizes perfectly the point of the removal of the curse of the Law (if Paul was only a pious Jewish leader of a heresy of a Jewish heresy) and/or the gnostic point of the god creator as an evil demiurge (as a killer of the Son of an alien God).

If the Law is a curse (or the creator god is an evil god), then the Christ on the cross has to figure deliberately as a criminal, at least in the eyes of the Law or of the creator god, in order to remove the Law (or to free the slaves of the demiurge).

A possible criticism of the my thesis would be the improbability that the same Pillars could quote Deut. 21:23 or even derive from Deut 21:23 the idea of a crucified Christ.

The ''game rules'' defined by Deut. 21:23 seem very clear:

1) a crucified criminal has to be buried before the night.
2) Because otherwise the land is defiled by his not-pure blood.


Therefore, by direct contrast or ''antithesis'':

1) the crucified Christ has not to be buried before the night.
2) Because otherwise the land is not purified by his magic blood.

Which is the point that in Mark Jesus is buried before the night, but he is risen two days after? Why is the body of the other two crucified men left on their crosses, while only Jesus is buried ?

The effects, according stricto sensu to Deut. 21:23, may be only the following:

1) The blood of the two thieves defiled the land.

2) The blood of the Son didn't purify the land.

Maybe it is implicit here a subtle criticism against Joseph of Arimatea. He was a pious Jew unaware of the fact that he, by burying Jesus, prevented that the blood of Jesus, staying overnight on the cross, purified the land. At the same time, by abandoning the two thieves on their crosses, he allowed that their blood defiled the land.

By rising only ''in Galilee'', Jesus has de facto purified only the Galilee (of the Gentiles), but he has left the Judea under the weight of the his sins. Maybe in this sense ''Mark'' may have still played with Deut. 21:23 in mind.

[Giuseppe]

Mark is rather clear on the reason that moved Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus before the night:

When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

(Mark 15:42-43)

The first reason of the incipit (the coming night) seems to contradict the second reason (the fact that Joseph ''was also himself waiting for the kingdom of God''): did Joseph consider seriously Jesus as a criminal (and buried him as a mere criminal, for him) ? Or did Joseph consider Jesus the Messiah, since he was an apocalypticist, too (and buried Jesus only for respect)?

I am inclined, under the priority of Mark, to accept the first hypothesis: Joseph buried Jesus because he thought that Jesus was a criminal. But how can I explain the strange detail of the Joseph's apocalypticism?

If Marcion invented the episode, then the ignorance of Joseph about the real identity of Jesus + the Joseph's apocalypticism would explain the contradiction above: Joseph of Arimathea, just as John the Baptist, thought that the same Jewish Messiah was coming in the immediate future, but he didn't realize that in whiletime another Messiah was arrived: the Messiah of a Stranger God.

[Giuseppe]

In Marcion's Gospel Joseph is described as ''good'' and ''just'', but I doubt very that Marcion is speaking here: how could someone be at the same time ''good'' and ''just'' according to Marcion? Only the creator god is just, but only the alien god is good, in marcionite theology.

50 And, behold, a man named Joseph, who was a counsellor,
a good man, and a righteous
51 ( he had not consented to their counsel and deed;)
[a man] of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews:
who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God:
52 This man went unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth,
and laid it in a tomb that was hewn in stone,
wherein no man had ever yet lain.
54 And it was the day of the preparation, and the sabbath was dawning.
55 And the women also, which had come with him from Galilee,
followed after, and beheld the tomb, and how his body was laid.
56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments.
And on the sabbath day they rested according to the commandment.

Therefore I think that Luke interpolated the text by adding ''good man'' in reference to Joseph.

I am sure that in the future reconstruction by Vinzent the original reconstructed text is the following:

50 And, behold, a man named Joseph, who was a counsellor,
a righteous man of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews:
who was looking for the kingdom of God:
52 This man went unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth,
and laid it in a tomb that was hewn in stone,
wherein no man had ever yet lain.
54 And it was the day of the preparation, and the sabbath was dawning.
55 And the women also, which had come with him from Galilee,
followed after, and beheld the tomb, and how his body was laid.
56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments.
And on the sabbath day they rested according to the commandment.

Only a bet on my part.

[Ben C. Smith]

In Marcion's Gospel Joseph is described as ''good'' and ''just''....

Is he? Roth (minimally, of course) reconstructs as follows (boldfaced blue only):

50 Behold, a man named Joseph, who was a member of the council, a good and righteous man 51 (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), from Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was also waiting for God’s Kingdom: 52 this man went to Pilate, and asked for Jesus’ body.

This is based on Epiphanius and Tertullian, neither of whom call Joseph "good" or "just" in this Marcionite context: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=20#p39331.

[Giuseppe]

In Marcion's Gospel Joseph is described as ''good'' and ''just''....

Is he? Roth (minimally, of course) reconstructs as follows (boldfaced blue only):

50 Behold, a man named Joseph, who was a member of the council, a good and righteous man 51 (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), from Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was also waiting for God’s Kingdom: 52 this man went to Pilate, and asked for Jesus’ body.

This is based on Epiphanius and Tertullian, neither of whom call Joseph "good" or "just" in this Marcionite context: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=20#p39331.

Obviously, Joseph could disagree only as a member of that ''counsel': to this point in the Gospel, the reader has not more trust at all in the positive character of that ''counsel'', hence it is very ''difficult'' - at least for me - to think that Joseph would be an exception.

For the Marcionite priority, the problem remains in that:

(he had not consented to their counsel and deed),

...that still would make Joseph a positive figure. Or Joseph did disagree with their ''counsel and deed'' only because the risk, for him, was that the death of Jesus in that particular occasion could seriously ruin the observance of the Sabbath etc always in virtue of Deut. 21:23. Joseph would be ''good'' only for legalistic convenience but the problem is that this reading is too much ''psychological''.

Maybe only Mark may explain the sudden ''strange goodness'' of Joseph in that ''counsel'': the irony would be that even when a member of that counsel is described deliberately as a positive figure, really he prevents, by burying Jesus (in virtue of Deut. 21:23), that ''the land'' is purified by his magic blood.

To mean that the counsel -- all the counsel -- does only damage for his congenital blindness.

[rakovsky]

22 When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you for possession.

(Deut. 21:22-23)

To quote this verse in Gal 3:13 makes very well the theological point of Paul (not only of an hypothetical Jewish Paul, but also of an hypothetical Gnostic Paul), BUT ONLY if Jesus is buried not the same day of the his crucifixion (the reason is clear: otherwise the ''land'' is not purified by the magic blood of Jesus).

Ok, so in their theory, the curse went on Jesus, but the land was not cursed for Jesus' death or purified. In Christianity it's the believers who were purified.