Why Jesus hadn't to rise in Jerusalem, but in Galilee. Answer: in defense of YHWH

[Giuseppe]

Luke 13:33

In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

If Jesus dies precisely in Jerusalem, he confirms the prophetic character of the scriptures inspired by YHWH.

But if Jesus rises also in Jerusalem, then he would contradict directly the oracles of YHWH.

So the resurrection in Jerusalem is a punch in the face of YHWH.

Accordingly the Judaizers had Jesus risen in Galilee.

[Giuseppe]

Not coincidentially, the more anti-demiurgist gospel, the Fourth Gospel, has Jesus risen in Jerusalem, not in Galilee, not even as a visitor.

[Giuseppe]

This explanation, if true, would put to rest all the theories that see the presence of the risen one in Galilee as positive news for Gentiles of the Diaspora.

Even Celsus had complained the fact that the Risen didn't take revenge on his direct killers, by appearing to Pilate etc. But surely a resurrection in Jerusalem, i.e. in the place itself where the agents of YHWH could only die according to scriptures, is a revenge against YHWH himself.

[Giuseppe]

Also in Mcn the Risen one appears in Emmaus and Jerusalem, never in Galilee.

So he suspicion is strong that "Mark" (author) placed the Risen Jesus in Galilee because he didn't want that an apparition of the Risen one in Jerusalem was seen as an explicit challenge against YHWH.

"Mark" (author) didn't want to play the game of Marcion.

[Giuseppe]

From this POV, was Herod ruler only of Galilee (where Pilate had historically no jurisdiction at all) introduced precisely in order to place both the death and (therefore also) the resurrection in Galilee, against a previous anti-demiurgist tradition that placed the resurrection at contrary in Jerusalem?

The Gospel of Peter seems to have done just a such choice.