LisaShea Forum Logo
Search

Forum Areas
Parakeets
General Parakeet Chat
Keet Stories and Photos
Parakeet Photo Gallery
Budgie Training
Health and Medical Issues
Parakeet Breeding
In Memory Of ...
Non-Budgie Pets and Animals
Non-Budgie Animal Photos
Off-Topic for Keet Owners
Games
Animal Rights
Bird / Animal Books

General Discussion
Books, TV, Movies
Da Vinci Code
Dreams
Japanese Culture
Life, Universe, Everything
Online Courses
Politics
Religious Research
Show Your Own Work
Work From Home / Writing

Budgie Photos
My violet female budgie
my cage
two blues
Sponsored Link
Support Our Friends
The Child Health Site
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#345987 - 01/08/09 12:09 PM The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene
Grrr82CU Offline
Companion

Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 100
Loc: Chicago, IL
Part 1
There has been much discussion in the forum about the identity of the “beloved disciple” (Jn 13:23).

Dan Brown in "The da Vinci Code" popularized the centuries old whispers that Mary Magdalene was in fact the disciple being referred to and as such, she was the person to Jesus’ right in Leonardo’s painting of “The Last Supper”. As portrayed in Brown’s novel, Teabing points out that the figure exhibits feminine features plus “the hint of a bosom”.

Regarding such characteristics in the art of the time, it has already been noted that Leonardo was the product of the Florentine School and as such incorporated the style of painting young men with feminine facial structures, expressions and arguably an occasional “hint of a bosom". Some have used the description of “gender-bending” to describe this aspect of some of Leonardo's work.

There is yet one another dimension of Leonardo's paintings that is noteworthy of keeping in mind with regard to his portrayal of young men by representing them with effeminate or “gender bending” features. The "other" dimention to which this writer refers is that Leonardo chose to paint the same face into more than one of his portrayals of a young male figure.

Compare, for example, the “face” of John the Baptist (see note 1 at the conclusion of Part 2)

][indent][URL=http://s380.photobucket.com/albums/oo246/Grrr82CU/?action=view&current=Croped-JohntheBaptist.jpg][/url][/indent]

...with the face of his Angel in the Flesh (see note 2 at the conclusion of Part 2)

[indent][URL=http://s380.photobucket.com/albums/oo246/Grrr82CU/?action=view&current=Croped-AngelintheFlesh.jpg][/url][/indent]

The faces of the two paintings are unmistakably the same face. Equally unmistakable are the feminine facial characteristics in both portrayals especially when viewing the entire composition (links are provided below).

Now consider the face of “Tobias” in Leonardo’s painting Tobias and the Angel (see note 3 at the conclusion of Part 2) and notice the femininity portrayed in the facial characteristics of Tobias the “young man”

Here again we see a young man painted with feminine facial characteristics (and perhaps the “hint of a bosom” in the full painting referenced at the conclusion of Part 2?)

[indent][/indent][color:#FFFFFF].

The purpose of these three illustrations is to demonstrate how Leonardo often painted “young men”. The goal was to document by illustration how Leonrardo typically portrayed young men with effeminate features and even those “hints of bosoms ” seen sometimes in the style of the Florentine School.

Fast-forward to the argument concerning the “feminine” facial characteristics and the “hint of a bosom” of the disciple seated to Jesus’ right in Leonardo’s “The Last Supper”. Those characteristics form the basis of the conclusion that the disciple pictured must be Mary Magdalene and not the Apostle John. As seen from the foregoing illustrations, however, the argument that the disciple pictured is female because Leonardo painted the figure with feminine facial characteristics and the suggestion of other gender-associated anatomical features cannot be maintained in the face of the fact that he regularly painted young men that way. Proponents of this argumentation must look elsewhere for support.

Part 2 - follows


Edited by Lisa Shea (12/29/12 11:20 PM)
_________________________
Thanks For Visiting !!

Top

Add The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Twitter Add The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Facebook Add The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to MySpace Add The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Del.icio.us Digg The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene Add The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Yahoo My Web Add The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Google Bookmarks Add The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Stumbleupon Add The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Reddit
#345988 - 01/08/09 12:10 PM Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene [Re: Grrr82CU]
Grrr82CU Offline
Companion

Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 100
Loc: Chicago, IL
Part 2

Next, much has also been made of the “interval” between Jesus and the disciple to his immediate right. Believers ardently insist Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that she, not the Apostle John, is the one referred to as “the disciple Jesus loved” (Jn 13:23). Leonardo, it is claimed, in possession of this knowledge and knowing that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married deliberately painted the person to Jesus’ right as leaning away from him so as to provide a future clue to those who would understand it.

The “space” between Jesus and the disciple, proponents of this theory are quick to emphasize, is in the shape of a ”V”.

Nothing is said, however, about the smaller but still just as much a ”V” to the left of Jesus as being symbolic on the basis of the same standards claimed for the one to his right.

This ”V” shape, Dan Brown has us informed through his characters, is supposed to represent the ancient symbol of womanhood, the womb, and thereby the real “chalice”. Mary Magdalene being thus proclaimed in “The Da Vinci Code” as the real “Holy Grail”, is claimed to be the carrier of Jesus’ unborn child. Some will harken back to Sophie Nuvue’s comment towards the end of the movie relating to the prophesied appearance of the “male heir” that “they just got the pronoun wrong”. This is a story long carried along by the winds of Gnosticism.

Others will argue statements regarding the inclusion or exclusion of extant writings represent a “conspiracy theory” approach that the church went into the Greek Text and changed all those references from female to male. Again, it depends upon what one wants to believe, but there is one sentence in the NT Gospels account against which it is much more difficult to mount such an attack. More on that at the end of the post.

Those that debunk the ministry and even the existence of Jesus of Nazareth consider the writings of the New Testament as having no more validity than the Gnostic gospels. To them, a great conspiracy occurred in and around 325 CE during which time Gnostic Gospels such as the ”Gospel of Mary Magdalene” (see notes 4 & 5) and other such writings were suppressed and kept out of the bible “Canon” now expanded to include the grouping of “new testimonial” writings ultimately known simply as “The New Testament”.

The “discarded” writings, it was said by those doing the deciding, did not give evidence of being “inspired” (Gr: “theopneustos“ - God-Breathed”) whereas those accepted into the Canon did. To those in opposition and even to this day, this argument sounds disingenuous. They believe the real reason these writings were banned was because they contained material contradictory to the gospel accounts attributed to (even though the writings are anonymous) Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and other NT writers.

Who is right…and can anyone prove it to the satisfaction of either opposing side?

Probably not – but there are intriguing possibilities.

Gnosticism is the quintessential example of syncretism!! The Gnostic concept of “belief” was always a “work-in-progress”, ever freely adopting, absorbing, and redacting whatever aspects of any religion they encountered. into their own belief-matrix. Elements of Gnosticism can be traced as being widely dispersed even before the Gnostics encountered and began the syncretism of Christian beliefs into their own doctrines. The interaction with Christianity and the writings discovered at Nag Hammadi date from about the second century.

One important element to consider regarding the application of either "set of gospels" in the effort to identify the "disciple Jesus loved", is to determine which group has the better pedigree, the better archeological and/or historically-based seniority.

The earliest fragments of any of the NT Gospel accounts date from as early as 65 CE to 100 CE whereas the earliest fragments of the “Gnostic Gospels” date around the Second Century (101 to 200 CE). That leaves us with the “Gospel Accounts” of the Christian New Testament traditionally attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as being older than the competing Gnostic Gospels.

This writer anticipates that the “elder status” of the Christian Gospel accounts being applied to the task of identifying the “disciple Jesus loved” will be accorded no great weight by some readers judging from comments here and elsewhere expressing their beliefs (or lack thereof) in the veracity of the Hebrew and Christian texts. The simple fact remains, however, that the Christian gospel accounts are the oldest record from which to “rule-in” or “rule-out” that Mary Magdalene was or was not the disciple seated to Jesus’ right as painted by Leonardo da Vinci in “The Last Supper”.

When we investigate the NT Gospel account regarding the “beloved disciple” or “the disciple Jesus loved” – we at once see the gender of the pronoun used is masculine.

Originally Posted By: NT Gospels
  • Jn 13:23: There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved
    .
  • Jn 13:24: So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking."
    .
  • Jn 21:20: Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"
    .
  • Jn 21:21: So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?"
    .
  • Jn 21:22: Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!"
    .
  • Jn 21:23: Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"
    .
.Now notice what the writer of this account says next:

Originally Posted By: Jn 21:24
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true

.So the writer of this account self-identifies by association with the preceding verses as the individual being referred to as “him”, the “disciple Jesus loved”, who had leaned back towards Jesus and asked “Who is it?”. The writer goes on to assure that the testimony being given about all of this is true.

Knowing there are those who will still dispute on every point herein, it is again stated that the fact remains until textual evidence to the contrary is presented that is both older and more reliable than what has been discovered to date, the identity of the “disciple Jesus loved” cannot be established as being Mary Magdalene from Gnostic writings in contradiction to the older Christian text found especially in the Fourth Gospel as the following demonstrates.

Finally, a separation of identity between Mary Magdalene and “the disciple Jesus loved” is plainly stated as follows:

Originally Posted By: New American Standard Bible, Jn 20:1,2
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

.What conclusion might we reach then - based upon everything considered thus far plus the oldest available documentation?

First, Leonardo often painted young men such as John the Baptist, Tobias, and the disciple to Jesus’ right with feminine features so this does not in and of itself identify that figure as being female as many propose. Leonardo da Vinci’s portrayal of the disciple to Jesus’ right in “The Last Supper, therefore, was a youthful male apostle depicted with feminine characterics as he had done so often before (including a seperate painting of the John The Baptist previously demonstrated and referenced below).

Secondly - and piviotal to the identification of the disciple in question, Mary Magdalene – did not run to herself at Jn 21:1, 2, in announcing that Jesus’ body was missing from the tomb, she ran to “the disciple Jesus loved”. Clearly then, she was not one and the same disciple who had leaned back upon Jesus’ chest from where he was seated at the table for “The Last Supper”.

Mary Magdalene - was not the disciple that Leonardo painted to Jesus' right, it was the youthful Apostle John.

Originally Posted By: URL References
Note 1: Leonardo's "John The Baptist" may be viewed in its full proportions at http://www.topofart.com/artists/da_Vinci_Leonardo/art_reproduction/1011/St_John_the_Baptist.php
Note 2: This writer has chosen not to portray the full painting of "The Angel in the Flesh" out of respect for the possibility of very young viewers visiting the forum. Those interested in viewing the drawing may locate it through any web-search portal
Note 3: Leonardo's painting of Tobias and the Angel may be viewed at http://www.universalleonardo.org/worklar...ount=&name=
Note 4: Gnostic Gospel of Mary Magdalene http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
Note 5: Fragment (select the "Oxyrhynchus" site), http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/

....and Grrr82CU smile

.


Edited by Lisa Shea (12/29/12 11:21 PM)
_________________________
Thanks For Visiting !!

Top

Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Twitter Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Facebook Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to MySpace Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Del.icio.us Digg Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Yahoo My Web Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Google Bookmarks Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Stumbleupon Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Reddit
#346057 - 01/08/09 05:27 PM Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene [Re: Grrr82CU]
PDM Offline


True Blue Soulmate

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 22788
Loc: UK
I hope that this will generate some interesting conversation.

Our thread on the loved disciple:

The Beloved Disciple / 'The disciple whom Jesus loved' (merged threads)
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=346068&page=1

*
These may also be relevant:
Mary Magdalane or John?
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=76836&page=1

Mary/John theory
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=187052

Missing Disciple?
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=80900


Edited by PDM (01/08/09 05:56 PM)
_________________________
"The secret of success is constancy to purpose" - Benjamin Disraeli.

Top

Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Twitter Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Facebook Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to MySpace Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Del.icio.us Digg Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Yahoo My Web Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Google Bookmarks Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Stumbleupon Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Reddit
#346381 - 01/11/09 03:11 AM Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene [Re: PDM]
PDM Offline


True Blue Soulmate

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 22788
Loc: UK
I'll look at Part 1, first.

Yes, I understand that Leonardo ~ and others ~ painted young men in an effeminate way.

I realise, therefore, that just because a model / character looks effeminate doesn't have to mean that this is a female.

With regard to this particular character, though, it is interesting that there appears to be a tradition of painting 'John' and 'Mary Magdalene' so that they look very similar indeed.

I would be interested to know the reason for this phenomenon, which is illustrated in the following thread:
Art - Why should 'John' look so feminine?
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=78565#Post78565

With regard to the two specific pieces shown, there is another one that is very, very similar.

It is shown in this thread:
Painting attributed to Salai
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=306587#Post306587

The above pictures are shown / discussed here:
Also two more images ~ 'the beloved disciple' and 'the virgin Mary'. They are very, very similar to each other & also resemble, somewhat, the males discussed:
Look here:
'How the apostle John was usually portrayed'
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=79832

I have posted 'the beloved disciple' and 'the virgin Mary' here, too:
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=79593

Three views of 'Mary' can be accessed here:
'Virgin of the Rocks - Again'
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=342371#Post342371


I said on another thread: 'There is an art researcher, called Maike Vogt-Luerssen who thinks that the same model posed for many of the females, in Leonardo's works, and that this woman's son, who resembled her, posed for a lot of the males.'
Quoted from my post here:
John, Mary Magdalene, or The Virgin Mary?
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=77519

See also:
Isabella of Aragon; a Sforza and Leonardo's model.
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=78623

Also relevant:
John slideshow on youtube
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=215989#Post215989

Leonardo's depiction of youthful males
http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=79260


Edited by PDM (01/11/09 03:42 AM)
_________________________
"The secret of success is constancy to purpose" - Benjamin Disraeli.

Top

Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Twitter Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Facebook Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to MySpace Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Del.icio.us Digg Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Yahoo My Web Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Google Bookmarks Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Stumbleupon Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Reddit
#346382 - 01/11/09 03:39 AM Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene [Re: Grrr82CU]
PDM Offline


True Blue Soulmate

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 22788
Loc: UK
Originally Posted By: Grrr82CU
Part 2

Next, much has also been made of the “interval” between Jesus and the disciple to his immediate right. Believers ardently insist Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that she, not the Apostle John, is the one referred to as “the disciple Jesus loved” (Jn 13:23). Leonardo, it is claimed, in possession of this knowledge and knowing that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married deliberately painted the person to Jesus’ right as leaning away from him so as to provide a future clue to those who would understand it.

The “space” between Jesus and the disciple, proponents of this theory are quick to emphasize, is in the shape of a ”V”.

Nothing is said, however, about the smaller but still just as much a ”V” to the left of Jesus as being symbolic on the basis of the same standards claimed for the one to his right...


I wouldn't like to say what this 'V' represents ~ I have no idea ~ but I do think that it is noticeable ~ much more so that the one on the other side.

Plus, the other one contains other symbolism ~ the upwards-pointing finger ~ called, by some, the gesture which represents John the Baptist.

So there are two mysteries set before us for us to solve.

There is a puzzle to the left of Jesus and a puzzle to the right.

On one side we have a disciple putting his 'framed' John gesture before Jesus.

On the other side, we have a disciple ~ 'the beloved disciple' ~ looking very like Leonardo's paintings of the Virgin Mary in the Madonna of the Rocks paintings, close to him at the hip, looking like a mirror image of him, and not lying in his lap, but pulling right away from him, with a noticeable V-shaped gap between them. It must mean something.

Of course, it is Leonardo's Renaissance art, it is not a contemproary illustration of 'The Last Supper'.



Edited by Lisa Shea (12/29/12 11:22 PM)
_________________________
"The secret of success is constancy to purpose" - Benjamin Disraeli.

Top

Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Twitter Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Facebook Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to MySpace Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Del.icio.us Digg Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Yahoo My Web Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Google Bookmarks Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Stumbleupon Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Reddit
#346383 - 01/11/09 03:47 AM Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene [Re: PDM]
PDM Offline


True Blue Soulmate

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 22788
Loc: UK
Regarding the conclusions based on Biblical verses, yes, they do appear to refer to a male, and not to Mary Magdalene.

However, those verses have been written, re-written and interpreted. I accept that we shouldn't read things in that are not there, but we shouldn't rely, too much, on ancient texts which had an agenda.

We do not have the originals. We do not know their full stories. We do not know who the writers were and whether or not they were biased.

I have read interpretations, where the writer has concluded that they may, indeed, refer to Mary, in spite of what has been said, above. I shall have to try to find the book.


Edited by PDM (01/11/09 03:54 AM)
_________________________
"The secret of success is constancy to purpose" - Benjamin Disraeli.

Top

Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Twitter Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Facebook Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to MySpace Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Del.icio.us Digg Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Yahoo My Web Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Google Bookmarks Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Stumbleupon Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Reddit
#346445 - 01/11/09 02:38 PM Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene [Re: PDM]
Grrr82CU Offline
Companion

Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 100
Loc: Chicago, IL
PDM has offered many interesting links with which to compare Leonardo's predilection for painting young men in a style that we today interpret as "feminine" features. In future posts, this writer intends to suggest a different reason for Leonardo's portrayal of young men with "delicate" features (note the word "feminine" was not used).

For now, and first, a quick look at the reference that some identify the disciple/apostle to Jesus left with the "upward pointing finger as John the Baptist".

Please review Post #79830 - 06/10/05, Topic: "How The Apostle John Was Usually Portrayed", (URL at the end of the Post).

In that example, the figure is not identified as John the Baptist but as Thomas.

John The Baptist was long dead by the time Jesus and his disciple/apostles met for this final time. Accordingly, Leonardo did not paint John The Baptist into the scene.

We are all aware from Dan Brown's novel of the emphasis the character Teabing puts on the appearance of the disciple/apostle to Jesus' immediate right and the interpretation he places on the " V " space in between them - echoed in this thought:

Originally Posted By: PDM, #346382
"It must mean something."

With respect, this thought can have the unintended consequence of giving impetus to find and apply a meaning that Leonardo himself never intended. Even in the novel, the phenomenon of Scotoma is applied in the discussion that Sophie Neveu "saw" a male figure because of her pre-conceived notion the painting was of twelve male apostles. As was argued in the novel/movie, the brain excludes consideration of what the eye is seeing because of what it wants or expects to see.

To "make" the " V " become something beyond a simple interval of space between Jesus and the youthful disciple to his right - is to run the very real risk of exercising the principle of "seeing what the mind wants to believe". To be sure, this writer knows PDM to be a careful reader and researcher but the unintended consequences of "It must mean something" must be carefully guarded against to prevent any tendency to develop and apply "meaning" where such meaning was not intended by the originating artist.

Consider this....

If Leonardo intended to portray Jesus and Mary Magdalene as a "couple" in "The Last Supper" - where are other examples of this supposed belief of his expressed in other paintings, sculpture, or drawings? Nothing of the sort exists.

Next, let us be clear on the body posture and positioning of the figure in question. Many looking for a reason to "see" some hidden meaning in the space to Jesus' right believe Leonardo deliberately painted the figure in such a way to create a " V " shaped space by leaning away from him.

This writer counters - that Leonardo was depicting exactly the moment he was intending - and it wasn't to create a " V " shaped space to represent the female womb.

What Leonardo did, was to paint a specifically described event that involved one and only one of the those present:

Originally Posted By: Jn 13:32,33,34, NAS
"The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking. There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. So Simon Peter motioned to this man to ask Jesus about whom he was speaking. He, leaning back thus on Jesus' bosom, said to Him, "Lord, who is it?"

Now pull up a picture of "The Last Supper" and look at it.

Leornado did not intend for us to interpret the figure in question as leaning away from Jesus but leaning toward Peter.

Again - look at the picture! Leonardo depicts Peter as being in the process of asking his question. Peter's lips are close to the inclined ear of the disciple as if to make himself heard above the elevated and animated discussions around them, his hand is on the disciple's shoulder - doing as we ourselves might do when accompanying a verbal directive - he is gesturing, pointing in Jesus' direction whom he wants the youthful Apostle to ask his question.

Everything Leonardo paints of this moment between Peter and the disciple is happening right then, right in the midst of the room's chaos, according to Jn 13:32,33,34. This portrayal does not paint a picture of a Mary Magdalene and a "V" symbolizing the real "chalice", the "womb", it is showing us the youthful Apostle John, the one to whom Mary later ran to announce that Jesus' body was missing from the tomb, receiving a request from the Apostle Peter to ask Jesus the identity of the one about to betray him.

Only time remaining for one or two more thoughts regarding the NT verses used by this writer to discuss the "gender" indicted of the disciple/apostle seated to Jesus' right.

Originally Posted By: PDM
"However, those verses have been written, re-written and interpreted.

Quid Pro Quo

With respect, knowing many feel that way regarding "scripture", in the interests of applying an equal standard to both, Leonardo's painting has been repaired, retouched, repainted, damaged by Napoleon's troops, partially removed - then glued back in place, been declared "unrecognizable" several times over and in between centuries and periods of neglect. Even with the earliest copies (made on the very edge of the painting being "unrecognizable") to compare for restorative purposes, who can say with certainty employing the same standard being applied above to bible verses that nuances and delicate details have also not been altered by those with an agenda with regard to Leonardo's painting?

In either case, there is good reason to give due weight and credit to the results regarding the work on both bible texts by textual scholars ever searching for and refining biblical texts for the greatest accuracy as well as to the well intended restoration work over the centuries on Leonardo's painting.

Finally, remember the earlier point - that the disciple/apostle to Jesus' right is not leaning away from him but toward Peter.

That fact alone provides an entirely different perspective regarding the proposed "symbolic meaning" of the "V" space between Jesus and the disciple. After all, with the disciple/apostle leaning away from Jesus and toward Peter to hear what he wanted to say, what else would Leonardo's have painted there if not the "V" space as a matter of pure conincidence versus the speculations of modern day da Vinci Code theorists?

Regrettably, this writer will be away for a period of time tending to a personal matter, so some absence from discussion is unavoidable.

...but...Grrr82CU smile


URL to view a representation of attendees of "The Last Supper" (scroll down to reach Last Supper image):

http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=79819&page=2
_________________________
Thanks For Visiting !!

Top

Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Twitter Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Facebook Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to MySpace Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Del.icio.us Digg Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Yahoo My Web Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Google Bookmarks Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Stumbleupon Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Reddit
#347090 - 01/15/09 05:44 PM Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene [Re: Grrr82CU]
PDM Offline


True Blue Soulmate

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 22788
Loc: UK
Originally Posted By: Grrr82CU
.... For now, and first, a quick look at the reference that some identify the disciple/apostle to Jesus left with the "upward pointing finger as John the Baptist".

Please review Post #79830 - 06/10/05, Topic: "How The Apostle John Was Usually Portrayed", (URL at the end of the Post).

In that example, the figure is not identified as John the Baptist but as Thomas.

John The Baptist was long dead by the time Jesus and his disciple/apostles met for this final time. Accordingly, Leonardo did not paint John The Baptist into the scene.....


Of course John had been killed by this time. I never thought that this was John The Baptist. The point I was making is that the pointing finger has been equated with John The Baptist. In Raphael's 'The School of Athens', it looks like Leonardo, himself, who is pointing.
http://www.newbanner.com/AboutPic/SOA.html
It would appear that this gesture had real meaning for Leonardo.
Gestures always mean something.
What was the reason for Thomas's pointing finger?
Since Leonardo's John the Baptist figures seem to be connected to the gesture, I wonder if it is meant to symbolise him in the painting.
_________________________
"The secret of success is constancy to purpose" - Benjamin Disraeli.

Top

Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Twitter Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Facebook Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to MySpace Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Del.icio.us Digg Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Yahoo My Web Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Google Bookmarks Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Stumbleupon Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Reddit
#347093 - 01/15/09 06:01 PM Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene [Re: Grrr82CU]
PDM Offline


True Blue Soulmate

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 22788
Loc: UK
Originally Posted By: PDM, #346382
"It must mean something."

Originally Posted By: Grrr82CU

With respect, this thought can have the unintended consequence of giving impetus to find and apply a meaning that Leonardo himself never intended. ..... the brain excludes consideration of what the eye is seeing because of what it wants or expects to see.

To "make" the " V " become something beyond a simple interval of space between Jesus and the youthful disciple to his right - is to run the very real risk of exercising the principle of "seeing what the mind wants to believe".


On the other hand, experts agree that there was a lot of symbolism in Renaissance art. If we do not look for it, how will we find it?

I had a look at some other 'Last Suppers'.

In the following, 'John' is in the lap of Jesus:
http://www.irfwp.org/content/archives/lastsupper.jpg ~ 'John ' is in his lap.

Bassano, Jacopo 'The Last Supper' 1542 ~'John ' is in his lap.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bassano/last-supper/

Last Supper — Domenico Ghirlandaio, 1480
http://www2.creighton.edu/ipf/ipfprograms/formingtheformators/thesaintlyintellect/

This one, like Leonardo's has the 'V-shaped gap.
Philippe de Champaigne. The Last Supper. 1654. ~ Does have the 'V'
http://romanchristendom.blogspot.com/2008/03/maundy-thursday-new-commandment-i-give.html

Doesn't Leonardo want us to wonder why he put such a large gap between Jesus and the beloved disciple, rather than having him in his lap?


Edited by Lisa Shea (12/29/12 11:23 PM)
_________________________
"The secret of success is constancy to purpose" - Benjamin Disraeli.

Top

Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Twitter Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Facebook Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to MySpace Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Del.icio.us Digg Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Yahoo My Web Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Google Bookmarks Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Stumbleupon Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Reddit
#347094 - 01/15/09 06:05 PM Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene [Re: Grrr82CU]
PDM Offline


True Blue Soulmate

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 22788
Loc: UK
Originally Posted By: PDM
"However, those verses have been written, re-written and interpreted.


Originally Posted By: Grrr82CU
With respect, knowing many feel that way regarding "scripture", in the interests of applying an equal standard to both, Leonardo's painting has been repaired, retouched, repainted, damaged by Napoleon's troops, partially removed - then glued back in place, been declared "unrecognizable" several times over and in between centuries and periods of neglect. Even with the earliest copies (made on the very edge of the painting being "unrecognizable") to compare for restorative purposes, who can say with certainty employing the same standard being applied above to bible verses that nuances and delicate details have also not been altered by those with an agenda with regard to Leonardo's painting?...


Yes, indeed, so it is hard to be sure of anything.

I am mostly intrigued by the similarity between the Marys of the 'Virgin of the Rocks' pictures and the beloved disciple in 'The Last Supper'.


Edited by PDM (01/15/09 06:06 PM)
_________________________
"The secret of success is constancy to purpose" - Benjamin Disraeli.

Top

Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Twitter Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Facebook Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to MySpace Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Del.icio.us Digg Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Yahoo My Web Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Google Bookmarks Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Stumbleupon Add Re: The "Beloved Disciple" - Was Not Mary Magdalene to Reddit
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >

Moderator:  Lisa Shea 

Want to reply? Register as a Forum Member - it's quick, free and fun!
Latest Posts
Question of the day!
by rstuvw579648
Today at 04:23 PM
bike gear cyanotypes
by rstuvw579648
Today at 04:21 PM
Zuzu and Felix, our two black kittens
by rstuvw579648
Today at 04:18 PM
Happy Halloween, everyone!
by rstuvw579648
Yesterday at 02:20 AM
Youth Soccer And Ring Pops
by gallerr
11/15/17 11:37 PM
Meditate
by Lisa Shea
11/15/17 10:06 PM
Zuzu is a literary cat!
by Lisa Shea
11/15/17 12:28 AM
10 Things Every Amateur Football Team Will Need
by wu yu
11/13/17 01:51 AM
Teaming Up For The Fifa 2010 Soccer World Cup
by Brettt
10/26/17 08:35 AM
Yoga
by Lisa Shea
10/23/17 03:07 PM
Forum Guidelines
This forum takes web safety issues very seriously. Please make sure you have read and understood our Forum Guidelines before posting.
Sponsored Link
Support Our Friends
The Animal Rescue Site