# Da Vinci Code-"Last Supper' Debate



## McMurphy

In the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, a conspiracy theory was presented that it was Mary Magdalene, not Peter, who was sitting just left of Jesus in Da Vinci' "The Last Supper."

It is far fetched, I know. For starters, the replacement of Peter would leave an Apostle missing from the picture, so, if Da Vince actually attended to include Magdalene in the painting, he would have been doing so on duel identity level. Regardless, take a look at the below attachment of a magnification of the person to the left of Jesus in "The Last Supper." The person certainly does seem female in features after a person strips away centuries of learned viewing prejudice and compare it to all the other figures in the painting.

Your thoughts?


----------



## kyektulu

*I read Dan Browns 'Da Vinci Code' and enjoyed it.
I must admit that there is alot of things he adds in there which makes you question the holy grail. 
 As conspiricy theories go it is very compelling.
 I have always thought that the figure in Da Vinci's Last Supper was very feminine even before this book came out.
In fact quite a few of the questions he raises makes you second guess the bibles content.
Yet there is alot of things that the Vattican keeps from the general public maybe this is just another of thier secrets?
Who knows.
*


----------



## sanityassassin

I think the figure is very feminine and could be duel meaning that di vinci used quite a bit. A lot of the programs disecting the book have experts that poke holes in the theorys and say people have closed minds if they beleive it but they do not even dare think he might have hit on something missed for hundreds of years. I don't think everything in the book is real but I think he has some very good ideas and can only be a good thing if it makes people question things that have seemed like fact for so long


----------



## dwndrgn

I immediately went to an image of the painting after reading the book to check for that.  On first looking, I thought, sure, it's a female.  And then second-guessed myself thinking I was just brainwashed and to look at it with a little less bias.  On the second viewing, I compared the features of that 'apostle' with the images of all the other apostles and discovered two things: A. They all have some type of femininity in their features (including Jesus), though most have some type of facial hair, and B. That one is still the most feminine.

So, there you have it.  The perspective of a person who consideres the Bible to be historical fiction. (I say this not to start a debate on the Bible itself - let's not derail this debate, just to show where my view comes from.)


Here's a link to the entire painting http://www.artchive.com/artchive/L/leonardo/lastsupp.jpg.html


----------



## cornelius

I'd take another look on the painting with different kinds of cameras and see if the figure was feminin in origin or not; I've heard many so called " theories" behind all of the figures, I don't know which ones to believe. It is said that the figure in fact is Peter, but he's given a female appearence to show his "purity". I don't know for that, the church didn't realy had it going for women ( I don't know in Da Vinci's place). 

I also heard that it is a women, but not Magdalena. there wasn't a Peter either, she was one of the many feminine pupils among the apostels ( who weren't with as many as the bible tells, there were about forty, the missing ones were either gay or feminin)

I heard the previous theories posted here too. I 've heard loads of others too. I don't realy have an opinion of y own on this, nor did I read the Da Vinci Code. I am not saying that which I posted here above is correct. I jst wanted to add this and see what you think about it.


----------



## nixie

The Da Vinci Code was just a piece  of fiction with half baked theories.The church should just have ignored it instead of condemning it .Although that is a very feminine figure in the last supper


----------



## Paradox 99

Although it's just a novel, most of Dan Brown's information regarding this was simply taken from "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" which caused quite a stir when it was published.

Whilst some of it has been overdramatised for the purpose of creating a good thriller, a lot of the info in there I find to be quite credible.

Regarding the painting, the fact that there are only 11 disciples if the figure show here _is_ Mary is explainable. Considering how the disciples appear to be interacting, this could be the scene _after_ Judas left the table, thus you have the 11 disciples and Mary.

I think that you'd have to look at each of Da Vinci's paintings, his work and history to determine if this is likely to be Mary he's painted here. It certainly makes for interesting research.

I believe that a good lesson to be learned here is that Dan Brown saw the potential for this whole thing to be turned into a great idea for a spy novel. He's certainly done well out if it!


----------



## Dachux

Paradox 99 said:
			
		

> I believe that a good lesson to be learned here is that Dan Brown saw the potential for this whole thing to be turned into a great idea for a spy novel. He's certainly done well out if it!


 
I completely agree with you about that.

But I like to say few things about the painting itself. All greatest masterpieces of art are more like legends than art. "The Last Supper" isn't exception, but it doesn't mean that this painting has no worth. You may object, but this is where I am driving to...

When Da Vinci was painting it he tryed new kind of background tehnique. He used his own recipe for the preparation of the wall but it failed. Also Leonardo devised new medium incorporating oil, which had several advantages and did not have to be painted in a hurry, before the plaster dried, so that alternations could be made later. But it had the overwhelming disadvantage that it did not wear well. In fact Leonardo's painting seems to have begun to crack and discolour very quickly, in his own lifetime. So this explains the large amount of restorations it had. But still it gives enough facts to say that Leanardo failed painting it. We may still get a dim perception of Da Vinci' design, but you will see virtually nothing of his brushwork. 

It was time to set in legend...

I think this vertion of last supper is more dramatic than other, cause Leonardo chose not the solemn moment of the breaking of the bread, but the moment at which Christ declares, "One of you will betray me," causing the outburst of emotions - consternation, fear, anger, anxiety, doubt. Here is mastery of Leornado's talent to show the emotions and souls of people. But if you are refering to the figure to the left of Christ it's really female. It's too young to be Mary, so there is given vertion that the young woman could be Mary Magdalena. But we are free to choose our own vertion. Bun knowing Leonardo's attitude to church, he could made that kind of "joke". (If you study more of his works, you will see that he is teasing christian dogmas very often)... uh going to write more, but maybe this will fit  

When more than 5 centuries are passed, this painting still urges our minds. And that is true masterpiece.


----------



## orionsixwings

The fact that Da Vinci himself is also basing his paintings and many other things on information written or handed down to him by people who were not alive and who were not with Jesus Christ and his apostles during the time he walked the earth, means that he and his works too (as well as his sources), are subject to skepticism.

Why believe the painting?  Then again, why believe the Church?  Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.

But here's a fact that I know is for certain:  The Catholic Church was founded by a Pagan and his sole purpose was to unite his divided Empire -- NOT because he believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Thus the Catholic Church, if any - forgive me if I offend anyone - has a record of lies and cover-ups, and are not even linked directly to the TRUE church that Christ founded.  Essentially, what I am trying to say, The Catholic Church should not be the voice of Christianity because -- by origin -- it is _not_ christian.


----------



## sanityassassin

orionsixwings said:
			
		

> The fact that Da Vinci himself is also basing his paintings and many other things on information written or handed down to him by people who were not alive and who were not with Jesus Christ and his apostles during the time he walked the earth, means that he and his works too (as well as his sources), are subject to skepticism.
> 
> Why believe the painting?  Then again, why believe the Church?  Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.
> 
> But here's a fact that I know is for certain:  The Catholic Church was founded by a Pagan and his sole purpose was to unite his divided Empire -- NOT because he believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Thus the Catholic Church, if any - forgive me if I offend anyone - has a record of lies and cover-ups, and are not even linked directly to the TRUE church that Christ founded.  Essentially, what I am trying to say, The Catholic Church should not be the voice of Christianity because -- by origin -- it is _not_ christian.


although I agree in principle by your logic then all christian religions are the same because catholism is the basis of all other christian churches


----------



## orionsixwings

sanityassassin said:
			
		

> although I agree in principle by your logic then all christian religions are the same because catholism is the basis of all other christian churches


Basis of all So-Called Christian Churches, because remember, The Roman Catholic Religion is not purely Christian, therefore all those who base their beliefs upon its doctrines and teachings are also not pure.

Sad isn't it?

But doesn't this open a doorway to "find" the real religion that followed the teachings of the Christ?  Who's teachings and doctrines have not been tainted by pagan worship and whose roots can be traced from the very first followers of Jesus Christ?  Because Constantine was not able  to eradicate Christianity -- the real Christianity - entirely, (although merging Helenistic beliefs with Christian concepts is not acceptible as triumph for the Christian side either) I'd say there is a pure Christianity that was able to survive.

Question is--- what is it?  Where is it?  And why are people not looking for it?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

orion, please remember that there will, almost certainly, at some point be people reading this topic who _are_ Roman Catholics, or who are members of other Christian denominations, who are more than likely going to find some of the foregoing statements offensive and disrespectful, whether you intend them to be so or not.  So for the sake of peace in our little community, could you try to be a little more sensitive?

Besides, this thread is supposed to be about the already controversial theories in the _Da Vinci Code_ and you're straying a bit off-topic anyway.


----------



## dwndrgn

I'm closing this thread as it has gone off topic and moved on to a topic that doesn't need to be debated here - this forum deals with fantasy and science fiction, and this thread was originally about an art interpretation.  Let's please keep that in mind while contributing. If you'd like to cross swords over religion, please head on over to the sister forum on religion, it is set up there for just this sort of thing.


----------

