The Da Vinci Code ~ What's up with that?

[lilymarie]

I just recently halfway watched The Da Vinci Code for the first time.

I could not watch the whole thing because the self-inflicted martydom of one of the characters was too sickening to watch, and so I didn't finish watching the movie.

But, my main questions are now:

Why is a woman painted in the actual Da Vinci painting? (And it does look like a woman to me -- no ifs, ans or buts about it).

Some will say it's not a woman, but it definately looks like a woman to me.

So, what is up with that?

Why would the Vatican in those days allow such a thing?

Does anyone have any explanation of this?

I mean what is up?

Here's a link to the painting... it definately looks like a woman to me as one of the 12 apostles. It's the one sitting to the left of Jesus.

Anyhow, what's up?

Something seems very odd to me about the painting of The Last Supper.

Also, what do you think of the painting?

Does it look like a woman to you?

Please share your thoughts on the painting and the movie if you'd like.

(Also you can use your mouse and click on it and it will enlarge the picture of the woman seated next to Jesus on the left. And it does look like a woman to me.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...(1452-1519)_-_The_Last_Supper_(1495-1498).jpg

 

[£amb]

My husband and myself watched the movie this weekend. As far as it being a movie, it was fine. It was starting to make you wonder "who is it/who did it" kind of way. I as a believer got nothing out of this movie. It didn't make me question my faith. I know there are many people out there know who take this as fact. I take God's word over a fictional books. I'm not an Art expert, but didn't they used to paint people with a feminine look to them including the males. I don't know, that was just my thought.

 

[lilymarie]

My husband and myself watched the movie this weekend. As far as it being a movie, it was fine. It was starting to make you wonder "who is it/who did it" kind of way. I as a believer got nothing out of this movie. It didn't make me question my faith. I know there are many people out there know who take this as fact. I take God's word over a fictional books. I'm not an Art expert, but didn't they used to paint people with a feminine look to them including the males. I don't know, that was just my thought.

Feminine look? I'm not so sure about that.

Also, click on my photo icon and you will see one of my paintings.

I don't use any models at all when I paint. I also paint directly to canvas, no sketches whatsoever. And even without "models", I can still make a face look feminine or masculine?

Da Vinci was a great artist. I am a self-taught amateur -- I've had no schooling nor training whatsoever.

If I can paint male and female faces, I'm sure Leonardo could too.

So there is no real excuse as to why one looks female even if that particular sitter or model was a woman.

Painters can paint facial feature of a man or woman without needing them there. I do it all the time and with no models whatsoever.

In my paintings females look female and males look male?

So, in my mind, as one who has painted, this is most peculair???????????

Also, ALL the rest of the masculine figures look like they have facial hair. Yet not the figure sitting next to Jesus???????

 

[stumpjumper]

I read the book about two years ago and, being me, I bought a bunch of other books that D. Brown referenced in the DVC...

I don't think the person sitting to the right of Jesus was neccesarily a woman. The apostle John was depicted as being fair and young and in Leonardo's time young men were depicted with feminine features.

However, even if Leonardo did paint a woman into the Last Supper, It really doesn't mean much at least to me... It could mean that he believed she was a disciple...

Leonardo most likely never read any of the gnostic gospels that Brown cites because they were discovered in Na Hammadi in the 1900's and buried in the 400's or so...

Sure there were other religious postions throughout the years that valued women higher than the Church of the middle ages did but that doesn't really support any of the wild ideas presented about Jesus being married and having children...

Also, IIRC, most art critics consider Dan Brown's position on Leonardo pure fiction...

 

[lilymarie]

I read the book about two years ago and, being me, I bought a bunch of other books that D. Brown referenced in the DVC...

I don't think the person sitting to the right of Jesus was neccesarily a woman. The apostle John was depicted as being fair and young and in Leonardo's time young men were depicted with feminine features.

However, even if Leonardo did paint a woman into the Last Supper, It really doesn't mean much at least to me... It could mean that he believed she was a disciple...

Leonardo most likely never read any of the gnostic gospels that Brown cites because they were discovered in Na Hammadi in the 1900's and buried in the 400's or so...

Sure there were other religious postions throughout the years that valued women higher than the Church of the middle ages did but that doesn't really support any of the wild ideas presented about Jesus being married and having children...

Also, IIRC, most art critics consider Dan Brown's position on Leonardo pure fiction...

But the RCC in those days commissioned these types of paintings, and, in other words, they were hired painters for the RCC.

Perhaps Da Vinci wasn't, I'm not sure, but most of the successful painters of those times painted at the request of the RCC and were on the RCC's payroll so to speak.

Also, there are only 13 characters in the painting... Jesus and twelve people. The one sitted next to Jesus on the left is definately a woman in my mind as that doesn't look anything like a young and fair man to me.

Also, look at the clothes -- the colors of Jesus and the one seated on the left that looks like a woman -- the colors chosen are mirror images of each other, and separate from the rest of the colors in the painting. The colors of what Jesus is wearing and the female one seated next to him are reverse images of blue and a rose type color. The rest of the colors in the painting are different.

It just is frankly weird. As a painter, I know something is weird about this.

So, no Mary wasn't added as a 13th apostle. There are only 12 apostles shown in the painting and one looks like a woman, and then Jesus is in the middle?

So if Mary was painted, where did the other apostle go?

Again note, there are only 13 figures in the whole painting.

Also, as a painter, I noticed right away that the head of the apostle sitting next to Jesus looks smaller than the male heads. The one that looks female looks like a smaller figure of a person, and thus it looks like a smaller female frame to me also.

 

[stumpjumper]

But the RCC in those days commissioned these types of paintings, and, in other words, they were hired painters for the RCC.

Perhaps Da Vinci wasn't, I'm not sure, but most of the successful painters of those times painted at the request of the RCC and were on the RCC's payroll so to speak. .

IIRC, the Last Supper was a mural that he Leonardo painted on the wall of a monastery. Leonardo did run into trouble with many of his commissions because he did not paint what was requested. Madonna on The Rocks being one of them...

The thing is that we know the Catholic Church would not have commissioned a painting that lent support to heretical beliefs... Leonardo might have been influenced by something like the history of the Cathars or some of the myths about Mary Magdalene in that time but I don't think that supports the position that those myths are true...

 

[lilymarie]

IIRC, the Last Supper was a mural that he Leonardo painted on the wall of a monastery. Leonardo did run into trouble with many of his commissions because he did not paint what was requested. Madonna on The Rocks being one of them...

The thing is that we know the Catholic Church would not have commissioned a painting that lent support to heretical beliefs... Leonardo might have been influenced by something like the history of the Cathars or some of the myths about Mary Magdalene in that time but I don't think that supports the position that those myths are true...

That's interesting. And, no, of course I don't believe this is truth, but it was deliberately done that way for some odd unexplainable reason?

I think the woman in this painting looks more like a Madonna than it would be Mary Magdelene though.

Also, all the other people look upset, but the one of the left sitting next to Jesus looks peaceful almost.

It truly is an odd painting and I never noticed that before until I watched (well) half of the movie.

I thought the movie was gross, especially the parts depecting self-martydom -- I just couldn't watch it.

 

[stumpjumper]

It is an odd painting for sure...

Leonardo was an odd fellow though

 

[canadiancatholic]

The apostle 3rd on his left has no facial hair either and also has a feminine air about him. I watched a debunking show on TV about this. They said that John was the youngest and most handsome and this was the way that Leonardo portrayed this. Also if Mr Browns arguments had any merit, why surface hundreds of years after the painting? Surely the art community would have said something before now, but most modern art experts say he is reading way too much into it.

 

[lilymarie]

The apostle 3rd on his left has no facial hair either and also has a feminine air about him. I watched a debunking show on TV about this. They said that John was the youngest and most handsome and this was the way that Leonardo portrayed this. Also if Mr Browns arguments had any merit, why surface hundreds of years after the painting? Surely the art community would have said something before now, but most modern art experts say he is reading way too much into it.

I think you mean the third on our right of the screen. Yes, I see he has no facial hair, but more like painted stumble (fine hair); however, that figure who is third on the right definately looks masculine to me!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is only one who looks feminine to me. All the others do not.

Also, the mirror images of the colors of the feminine looking one and Jesus are quite noticeable -- the colors are blue and a rose color.

But, my main question is: Are there Christians today who believe in this? And if so, then they deny the divinity of Chirst if they think that is Mary Magdelene.

But are there Christians on Christian forums who believe that Jesus was married?

 

[racer]

IIRC, the Last Supper was a mural that he Leonardo painted on the wall of a monastery. Leonardo did run into trouble with many of his commissions because he did not paint what was requested. Madonna on The Rocks being one of them...

The thing is that we know the Catholic Church would not have commissioned a painting that lent support to heretical beliefs... Leonardo might have been influenced by something like the history of the Cathars or some of the myths about Mary Magdalene in that time but I don't think that supports the position that those myths are true...

Well, my question is why would anyone believe that DaVinci would have been privvy to some secret that only the church would have known about Jesus?

But,

 

[racer]

However,

Is there some significance in the fact there is no "grail" on the table? Just Leonardo being his eccentric self?

 

[CrusaderKing]

If Jesus was married, that wouldn't have been left out of the New Testament. St. John is the man depicted in that painting and he was likely the youngest of the Apostles. If the figure had been female, the RCC would have rejected the painting.

 

[outhwaar]

I don't believe for a moment that Jesus was married or had children, but, even if He had, I don't see how that would call into question His divinity, or any of the other doctrines of the Faith.

 

[lilymarie]

However,

Is there some significance in the fact there is no "grail" on the table? Just Leonardo being his eccentric self?

Yes, I noticed that, too. Where is the cup that held the wine at The Last Supper?

There isn't one, just bread.

I still think the female figure looks like a Madonna type figure... and possibly a young female virgin? She looks almost serene such as a typical Madonna pose.

Or, it could be eluding to some type of "marriage"? Also, the one seated left to Jesus with the reverse colors as to what Jesus is wearing is definately calling attention to something.

But yes, where is the cup for the wine?

 

[Adammi]

Ok, let's say that Da Vinci did intend for it to be Mary Magdalene. Who is Da Vinci to make such allegations? The Grand Master of the Priory of Sion? Maybe, but he would have had to have had a time machine because the Priory of Sion was founded in the 1950's.

 

[Adammi]

Yes, I noticed that, too. Where is the cup that held the wine at The Last Supper?

Prior to the writing of The Da Vinci Code it was a long held tradition that the original viewers of the fresco were so amazed by the beauty of the chalice that Da Vinci painted over it because he didn't want for anything in his painting to supersede the preeminence of Christ in it.

 

[lilymarie]

Prior to the writing of The Da Vinci Code it was a long held tradition that the original viewers of the fresco were so amazed by the beauty of the chalice that Da Vinci painted over it because he didn't want for anything in his painting to supersede the preeminence of Christ in it.

If that were true, they can now see things that were painted over in old paintings via x-ray and other techniques. But I think mostly x-ray shows what has been painted over in old paintings.

I'll surf the net later and see what I can find.

It that is true they should have x-ray pictures taken showing the cup "painted over".

It's not hard to take those type of photographs... it's done all the time.

 

[racer]

Ok, let's say that Da Vinci did intend for it to be Mary Magdalene. Who is Da Vinci to make such allegations? The Grand Master of the Priory of Sion? Maybe, but he would have had to have had a time machine because the Priory of Sion was founded in the 1950's.

Well, as long as we're speculating . . . . who's to say?

 

[racer]

Prior to the writing of The Da Vinci Code it was a long held tradition that the original viewers of the fresco were so amazed by the beauty of the chalice that Da Vinci painted over it because he didn't want for anything in his painting to supersede the preeminence of Christ in it.

Hmmmm . . . . interesting