posted
So I finished reading it a few days ago, and as a mystery and a thriller, I thought it was just OK. BUT as far as a book with an interesting and thought provoking take on religion, history and art, I thought it was great. great. great.
...and I'll admit that my jaw dropped and my eyes went HUGE when I looked at "The Last Supper" again.
posted
I haven't read it...from what I've heard, the idea is too ridiculous for suspension of disbelief.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched Dan Brown on CSPAN (on weekends both CSPAN stations devote their air time to books and authors) and he discussed the thing about "The Last Supper" and the chalice. Any way, it is not so farfetched as one would think at first blush. There is a society that takes these theories quite seriously, and it is not without merit. It's been a while since I listened to the book, so I don't remember the name of the society he referenced, but I believe it does exist. I think it would be fun to do a google search on that society and see what pops up.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to be a snob, but from an art history perscpective, this book is absolute crap. This guy has never studied art history at a university level. Plus, it's cheesier than all get-out.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow i really loved the book. Even if the stuff about "the last supper" wasn't exactly accurate, it made me think. Plus i learned alot about paganism, and christianity, and a whole bunch of other stuff that i never would have known. I found the whole thing pretty facinating, even if the plot was a bit far fetched.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, high literature, it ain't, no Pulitzers here. And the plot was so contrived as to be ludicrous more times than I'd like to think about (did a lot of mental groaning while I was listening). *But* I didn't gong it and I found it entertaining, and thought the proposition that the chalice of life is really a woman to be interesting (and certainly metaphoric). As it is, being the non-believer and skeptic that I am, I'm much more willing to accept the metaphor than a virgin birth or a cup that gives everlasting life.
posted
I enjoyed the book tremendously, mostly because of its revelations, fictional or not, about early christian culture, the goddess cult, etc. If even part of what the book laid out is accurate, it...I don't know. If Mary Magdelene had been the head of the church rather than peter, I think the world would be a better place.
I also love telling local christians that mary magdelene wasn't a whore, but was in fact the wife of jesus christ. I really love it.
Plus, it makes a lot more sense.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read the book yet but I just finished reading this interesting article arguing that Mary Magdalene authored the Fourth Gospel.
Personally, knowing that Jesus loved and married a woman makes me feel closer to him. I hope this view doesn't offend anyone, but I was wondering if anyone else felt this way?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really enjoyed this book too (once I finally got it; everyone in NH is reading it right now I swear!) Granted some of it was stretching it but the way all the clues were tied together and written so that they weren't ridiculusly simple to figure out was fun. I don't know all that much (read: none) about the goddess aspect of early Christianity and Mary Magdelene but it seemed reasonable the way the book put it and like others have said, I find it easier to believe that Jeasus was a mortal man with a wife than the literal son of God born of a vergin.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
unahoo and others, the Masons are said to believe that Mary Magdalen and Jesus Christ were married and had at least one child. Since they are a "secret" society (though many of their secrets have been out over the past centuries) it is difficult to tell what they believe unless you are a member. Even then, there are 33 degrees of initiation, with more secrets gradually being revealed as you move on to the next degree.
Note that the Catholic Church persecuted as heretics and killed many people for holding these or similar beliefs in France and elsewhere, as well as surpressing most mention in historical records, so the truth is impossible to determine today.
There are certainly many, many references to a wedding or bride of Christ in the occult, gnostic, alchemical, tarot and kabbalistic traditions, as well as much weirder stuff.
Some believe that descendants of Christ founded the Merovingian dynasty of France, and that Christ's descendants will have an impact on the future of humanity. This was explored in a bizarre, fictional way in the film Dogma.
quote: A few paragraphs later, Starbird says "In the town of les Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer in France, there is a festival every May 23 to 25 at a shrine in honor of Saint Sarah the Egyptian, also called Sara Kali, the "Black Queen." Close scrutiny reveals that this festival, which originated in the Middle Ages, is in honor of an "Egyptian" child who accompanied Mary Magdalen, Martha, and Lazarus, arriving with them in a small boat that came ashore at this location in approximately ad 42....A child of Jesus, born after Mary's flight to Alexandria, would have been about twelve years of age at the time of the voyage to Gaul recorded in the legend." (p. 60-61) So here we have the news that Jesus and Mary had a daughter, and she was "Egyptian", and black
quote: Rosslyn Chapel is seen by many as the 'missing link' that demonstrates continuity between the Knights Templars and the Freemasons.
The Knights Templar
The Knights Templar - or Order of the Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon, to give the formal title - were an order of knights formed during the Crusades, rising to become the most powerful and wealthy institution in medieval Europe after the Church itself. They were literally warrior-monks, a monastic order (based on the Cistercians, with whom they had close ties) given special dispensation to fight and to shed blood. They were the most feared Christian fighting force of their day, respected even by the Assassins. However, to many people today the Templars are hugely exciting and mysterious, believed to have been the guardians of some great, occult secret.
After two centuries of unrivalled power in Europe and the Holy Land, the Order was suppressed in the early years of the 14th century on charges of heresy, blasphemy and obscenity. This move was initiated by Philip IV of France, who gave secret orders that all Templars in France be arrested at dawn on Friday, 13 October 1307. Similar action was taken against the Order in the rest of Europe, and the Pope declared it abolished in 1312. The last Templar Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, was roasted to death in Paris two years later.
However, there is good evidence that the Templars did not disappear, but simply went underground and continued in secret. The evidence reveals that the fugitive knights settled in Scotland, which at the time of the suppression had been excommunicated, and so lay outside the authority of the Pope.
cool occult website with lots on Masons aka Sons of the Widow and other X-file stuff. The Knights Templars are one of the roots of the Freemasons.
From the same website, concerning the Illuminati, the secret rulers of the world:
quote: A FORCE for evil or a force for good? A movement whose benevolent aim is human advancement, or whose sinister purpose is the enslavement of mankind to the capricious whims of a self-perpetuating elite?
A left wing conspiracy or a right wing conspiracy, a mysterious esoteric cabal whose lore of occult knowledge is based on ancient mystery cults - or simply a gigantic hoax, a fabrication stemming from the over-heated imaginations of conspiracy theorists?
Such is The Illuminati - a subject which has attracted vociferous claims and counter-claims down through the centuries. It has been blamed/credited - depending on who is grinding which particular axe at which particular time - for everything from wars and revolution to assassination and manipulation of global economies. ‘The Illuminati’ is conspiracy theory par excellence – as a subject it is the mother of all conspiracy theories.
Complex in the extreme, it is yet possible to discern a thread running through the subject of The Illuminati – a thread which establishes a link among The Illuminati, Freemasonry, ancient rituals of death and resurrection – and a mysterious warrior cult whose origins lie deep in the snow-capped mountains of Afghanistan.
posted
I hate to bring this thread up after it fell off the first page some decades ago, but I just did finish this book last week.
I'm forced to agree that as a work of fiction, I wasn't really impressed. But I should qualify that by mentioning that I really don't enjoy suspense/mysetery/thrillers (with the exception of Harry Potter, I guess, which touches other more important genres more suited to my personal taste). I've just never really enjoyed finding out at the end of a book that the answer was there all along, but the author simply omitted parts or perspectives of earlier scenes that would have given it away. Like finding out that one of the main characters is really the bad guy. Which, of course, makes the plot of the book a device for the conclusion of the book. I hate that.
But like others, I found the alternate histories concerning Christianity highly entertaining. Most of us knew already that a lot of the Christian religion was canabalized from other pagan religions. Some of us would agree that nearly ALL of it was.
In essence that is what this book suggests, as well. However there is one specific point the book discusses that I would like to examine with the scrutiny of a Hatrack audience.
During Langdon and Teabing's crash course on the Early Church, they both concur that it is a historically proven fact that at the Council of Nicea the first accepted Bible was constructed, choosing from the hundreds of manuscripts that were written about Jesus Christ the four gospels which most reflected Christ as an immortal God-being rather than a human being. The book argues that it is historically provable that at the Nicean Council (called for by the pagan Emperor Constantine) the divinity of Jesus was decided upon as a basic tenet of Christianity.
The reasons for that were many and they all seemed quite plausible at the time, but I have to wonder: can historians really prove that Jesus Christ was not believed to be divine until after that time? Has anyone ever heard of this kind of evidence outside of this work of fiction?
quote: can historians really prove that Jesus Christ was not believed to be divine until after that time?
Caleb, this is impossible to resolve because almost all of the source documents have been systematically destroyed by the Catholic Church and others. Heinlein has pointed out that the divinity and even the existance of Christ is impossible to determine because for centuries to question either was a death sentence. This is why the Dead Sea scrolls are such important artifacts, because they are original source documents, that escaped destruction and supression by early Christians. This may explain the Churchs' reluctance to fully release the original texts, I have no way of knowing. Some linguists recently circumvented this and released most of the texts in an unauthorized version, IIRC. I don't know much about it other than a couple of press releases. Morbo
But the characters made it sound like historical fact!
Well that brings me to another thing I didn't like about the book. Brown asserts by the end that the Priory of Sion (secret society that protects the documents that prove Christ was a mortal--and married--man) holds that the documents should NEVER be released to the public. And I thought the reasoning behind that was really really bad. It was just an excuse not to finish the quest, really. I mean seriously: if that was their stated goal, why not simply destroy the Sangreal?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
One of the tenets of "magic" is "tween"ness, or being between one thing and another. Midnight is magical because it is neither one day nor another. Same with the solstice, etc.
Being neither A nor B, but having the attributes of both is the best way I can describe it.
So by not proving the Church wrong you do no damage to the faith of those who believe. By not destroying the Grail you do no damage to those seeking it. You prove neither A nor B, but have something with the attributes of both.
Besides, the power of the Grail is the mystery and the quest, not the artifact itself.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:By not destroying the Grail you do no damage to those seeking it.
By keeping the documents and the sarcophagus intensly hidden, you most certainly do damage to those who are seeking it, especially if "it" represents the truth.
By your same logic the Priory could simply destroy the Grail and still do no damage to those who sought it, because the mystery and the magic are what matters.
For that matter, the Priory's other sacred charge was to keep Christ's lineage safe, presumably to to protect the line of Kings (Brown asserts that it is historically provable that Mary Magdelene herself was of noble descent). If these documents are never to be released, then how could you ever prove someone was the rightful heir to the Judaic throne (this is the implied end of their protection over the Merovingian line)? Or conversely, could you not simply destroy the Grail and ensure that Christ's descendents are never discovered?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm intrigued, EG. Does the book cover much of the same material in a more factual way?
Or at least, does it support it's claims with evidence rather than fiction? Brown's book I thought was highly plausible, but difficult to accept based on its lack of authenticity; re: fiction.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foucault's Pendulum is considerably better than The DaVinci Code, but is MUCH more challenging; huge chunks of the book are written in other languages, as Eco likes tormenting his intended audience. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I can muddle through most Germanic or Latin languages, but Hebraicly literate I am not.
But if you're saying the English portions are worth it, I'm seriously interested in exploring this subject in depth. Any other suggestions?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Lost Bible by J.R. Porter. It’s a collection of excerpts from books that weren’t included in the canon, with commentary. It also traces the influence that many of them had in popular piety and art.
Backgrounds of Early Christianity by Everett Ferguson includes major sections on political, social, and cultural influences, Greek and Roman religions and philosophy, and what was going on in Judaism at the time. Also literary references to Christianity in non-Christian sources, archeology, and the legal status of early Christianity.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it's a good thing Dana never uses her powers for evil. I mean, she could list a whole bunch of fake books that don't exist, and Caleb would go crazy. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I can't think of the name of the female Irish Saint with the same name as the female Irish goddess. Both had a tendancy to wear blue. Their attributes and histories have been muddled together. Whether she was a real Saint, named after this good goddess, or a goddess that the church absorbed when it arrived is a fun theological debate.
posted
I read that book a little while ago, i loved it! But what's really good is the book angels&demons excelent thought provocing book. It really got me interested in art. And it's really believable. His wife specializes in that type of stuff.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was an interesting idea. I always knew Mary Magdelene wasn't a prostitute. My mother told me that when I was a kid.
Also, it doesn't seem wildly improbable that Jesus was married. It would've been subject for criticism if he hadn't been. A man pretty well had to get married; it was an insult to his father to stay single.
And I looked at the Last Supper again, and the person they claim is female looks remarkably female to me. She has features like the other women Leonardo da Vinci drew, and, which is more telling, her skin is a good bit lighter than that of the other apostles.
It's weird. Several very Christian people have gotten very angry at me for saying that Leonardo da Vinci painted a woman into his Last Supper picture. I don't know why, honestly. Leonardo da Vinci put a woman in his picture, therefore there must have been a woman at the Last Supper? How does that follow?
quote:This film wonders if such a story, put forth as fiction in Brown's book, might actually have fact behind it. As it happens, it doesn't. The film's hostess, Elizabeth Vargas, interviews Catholic priests and Protestant evangelicals as well as art historians and biblical scholars, none of whom can produce any conclusive proof on the question of Jesus' putative marriage. Much screen time—far too much—is devoted to Brown himself, who is presented as a kind of historian; he expresses his belief in the theory with great animation but without any real scholarship or evidence to back it up.[quote]So... was Jesus married and is that a woman? Um, no. But we won't tell you for hours!
Now, whether or not Jesus was married may still be debatable/unknowable, but I sleep soundly, well-assured that while we don't know, Da Vinci sure didn't either.
posted
I read this book back in July when it first came out. And, as many have stated here, though a work of fiction, it does show the early church cannibalizing from paganism.
As for the Holy grail being a woman, or even the just the divine feminine, is also true.
Unfortunately, I didn't know about the documentary until now, and it's too late to watch it.
I just bought a book called "Polarity Magic: the Secret History of Western Philosophy"
I'm only on page 40, but it really is facinating.
Christianity seems to take too much onto the masculine divine and demonizes the feminine. I'm not knocking anyone who's Christian, it just never sat well with me as a personal belief. I'm a person who likes balance, and in paganism I find the balance between both of the sexes.
It's really a beautiful thing.
Oh yeah, my mom said when she was about 10 and in bible school, the pastor had shown the class a slide projection of DaVinci's Last Supper. She said she asked "who's the lady next to Jesus?" and he got very angry with her. Since she was so young, she did not question him. After all, he was the minister. (edited to add story)
posted
You didn't miss much--it wasn't a very good documentary. Sean Hannity was beside himself this afternoon on talk radio, angrily dismissing the idea that Christ could have been married, because he would be "tainted" by sex and woman, and similar nonsense.
quote:Christianity seems to take too much onto the masculine divine and demonizes the feminine.
Starla I have heard this is why the female is placed on the left side during Christian marriage ceremonies. The left=sinister=evil vs the right=literally, correct or good = dexter is a weird dichotomy noted by some thinkers. Linguistically, it's clear that "left" has evil attributes and connotations. Some weird theories have been advanced for the cause behind this, I don't remember them in detail. I have no source for this, if anyone wants to research it, be my guest. Try googling "evil left womanfolk." Hmmm, no, that only calls up Berkeley lesbians' websites...
posted
I was dissapointed that the documentary was cut due to the football game here in NH so thanks for telling us it wasn't good Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: in paganism I find the balance between both of the sexes.
I hope you mean neo-paganism. The paganism that was to be found among the ancient tribes of Anywhere On Earth was decidedly NOT egalitarian in any way, shape, or form.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
They edited it so as to pose more questions than answers, which is what you'd expect from an ABC documentary. Rather than concentrating on facts, the show spent almost all of its time asking for people's (mostly non-historians, including the author of The DaVinci Code) opinions.
They looked only momentarily at DaVinci's The Last Supper, and pointed out almost NONE of the embedded information in the painting. They also failed to explore any of DaVinci's other works, which have been shown to bear similar themes. Neither did they explore the works of Jean Cocteau or any of the other individuals whom the Priory of Sion claim to have been former Grand Masters of the order.
They were stunningly unfair to Provencial Magdalene legends and the various sites in the South of France that tell her story. Many times in the program they said "there is absolutely no evidence" where that was clearly a matter of opinion--or melodrama--to anyone who's spent the time to research her history.
I was more than disappointed.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb gave a pretty good review of ABC's documentary. It was totally watered down, probably out of fear of giving offense.
quote: They were stunningly unfair to Provencial Magdalene legends and the various sites in the South of France that tell her story. Many times in the program they said "there is absolutely no evidence" where that was clearly a matter of opinion--or melodrama--to anyone who's spent the time to research her history.
quote: can historians really prove that Jesus Christ was not believed to be divine until after that time?
Maybe I'm confused about what you are asking, but the whole point of having the meeting in Nicea was to end the battles between Arius and Alexander.
quote:Arius, a priest in Alexandria, held that Jesus was a creation of the Father. "There was a time when the Son was not," sang he and his followers, setting their theology to catchy tunes. The first being to be created, Jesus was nonetheless only a creature, according to Arius. He was not eternal. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria had condemned Arius' doctrine, saying that Jesus, the Word, existed eternally with the Father, was divine, and could not be created. Alexander and his aide, Athanasius, believed that by denying Christ's deity, Arianism threatened the core of Christian faith. Alexander had Arius removed from his post. Arius sought and won support from other bishops of the East. The conflict was on! Rioting ensued. Now this council had been called at Nicea to settle the controversy.
Maybe I'm confused about the question. Are you talking about Jesus as God's son type of divinity, or the trinity type of divinity? I believe the trinity divinity was originated (or finalized) with the Nicene Creed, though that was hardly the only thing discussed there.
quote:They had deliberated for nearly seven weeks, not only about the Arian heresy. An Arabic translation of the canons discussed at Nicea, found in the sixteenth century, shows that they debated on 84 subjects, ranging from the date of Easter (they set the day as the first Sunday, not coinciding with the Passover, after the first full moon following the vernal equinox) to determining whether the clergy could marry (the clergy were enjoined to marry before ordination, but not afterward).
It took them 7 weeks to discuss 84 topics? Man, it takes us about 3 days to discuss that many topics.
quote: Sean Hannity was beside himself this afternoon on talk radio, angrily dismissing the idea that Christ could have been married, because he would be "tainted" by sex and woman, and similar nonsense. quote:
Ain't that great. We've got a world where Hannity is judging God.
Maybe Hannity will write "The Newest Testament".
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit this topic has interested me. However, my conclusion is two-fold. First, I believe that Christ very well could have been married. Latter-day Saints, for their own theological reasons, have been arguing that possibility ("possibility" mind you) for almost a century. Instead of "De-Divinidizing" Jesus, as most who disagree with the marriage say it does, it actually makes him closer to Godhood.
As for DaVinci Code, I haven't read the book or care to try. Even if DaVinci did have some hidden idea that Jesus was married, it hardly makes him an authority on the truth of the matter. Its not like he lived anywhere near the time of Jesus Christ. The only two theories of such a view I have heard of is some kind of document with lots of signatures whose content is never explained, and a picture of a feminized male in the last supper.
The feminization of males is not an aboration of art within the context of religious painting. It is very common for an artist of DaVinci's time to represent the "good, pure, and beautiful" of humans as having female visages. There is more than one painting from that era that has a feminized Jesus Christ. In fact, if it was going to represent a woman there would be no question it was such. They painted them nice and big and round. A thin woman represented sickness and poverty. The more interesting question would be why artists would use the feminine when socially females were considered of lesser value and perhaps evil by nature.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember once or twice bringing up the idea that Christ could have been married; I didn't see it as a big deal either way. The people I spoke to about it looked startled, and the campus minister simultaneously amused and horrified. (I periodically come up with weird theological ideas ranging from the mildly odd to the bizarre; rarely do I mean them seriously.)
I did think that there was a legitimate translation of the term "magdalen" as "prostitute", though "person from Magdala" was just as likely.
As for Leonardo, I agree with the last guy. What's he know about the matter?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
In the book it is not DaVinci who argues for the wife of Christ. It is a long series of people, with historical documentation (hidden away as a threat/safety net against the Catholic Church).
The book tries to portray DaVinci as one of a long line of artists, Troubadours, etc who are offering this alternative view point about Christ in their art work.
That is why so many artists of the period portrayed good and sweet and innocent men with feminine features. It was the power of the Feminine.
posted
What you guys don't understand, if you've only watched the documentary and haven't done any independent research, is that there is an astounding amount of evidence to suggest that Leonardo DaVinci belonged to a secret society that did believe Mary Magdalene to be, among other things, married to Jesus Christ. From what we know about Jewish culture of that time it makes sense, too: in fact, for Jesus NOT to have been married would have been quite the social taboo. Which isn't evidence, really, especially since Jesus' ministry was breaking traditional taboos left and right. However, we know that it would have been common not to mention a man's wife in that time period, and we also know that it would have been UNcommon to have an unmarried preacher and for no one to make any comment about it whatsoever; the prospect was scandalous.
As to the authority and/or truth of what DaVinci may or may not have known, we cannot be sure at this time. The documents that the Priory claims to protect are not available for our review.
What we can say for sure is that DaVinci was a genius and he didn't have accidents in his paintings. He was exceptionally skilled at painting the differences between the sexes, both subtly and not-so subtly. When looking at the last supper there are MANY elements of the painting that are unorthodox, and ALL of them tie into the Mary Magdalene secret, whether or not that secret has any truth to it.
The figure to the left of Christ is a woman; I am sure of that. He painted it in such a way that it would not be obvious, and yet it would be to anyone who looks closely enough. The Magdalene's clothes, for instance, are the inverted colors of Jesus' robes. Red on Blue vs. Blue on Red. These colors have meaning. As does the clearly dilineated space between the two figures... aside from forming the sign of the chalice AND forming a deliberate "M" shape in the center of the table, closer review of the painting reveals that several of the other disciples are making threatening gestures toward the Magdalene--a hand slices across her neck, for example. Elsewhere a dagger/knife is being held by a disembodied hand. One could say that it appears the disciples are trying to pull her away from Christ.
Whether the whole thing is true or not I won't/can't say. Whether or not DaVinci believed it to be true is another subject altogether, and I have become convinced (though not through Dan Brown's book, I should add) that he did.
I'm currently doing some research on Magdelene legends from the South of France; most of my opinions on this matter were formed from "The Templar Revelation", if anyone is interested.
quote: She has features like the other women Leonardo da Vinci drew, and, which is more telling, her skin is a good bit lighter than that of the other apostles.
Jen, you are absolutely right. She glows.
*astonished that I never saw this before
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Keep in mind that Da Vinci was not AT the true "last supper" (since Christ died in 33 AD, and Da Vinci wasn't born until 1452 AD), so his painting is purely of his own imagining.
In fact, this is true to all paintings of Christ. We have no depictions of Jesus from anyone who actually personally saw him -- so they are all just a growing, changing "artist's conception" of how they think he looked. In some ways, I suppose you could say all "images" of Christ are just graven images, since we have no true picture of his looks.
quote:The figure to the left of Christ is a woman; I am sure of that. He painted it in such a way that it would not be obvious, and yet it would be to anyone who looks closely enough. The Magdalene's clothes, for instance, are the inverted colors of Jesus' robes. Red on Blue vs. Blue on Red. These colors have meaning. As does the clearly dilineated space between the two figures...
I wouldn't argue they don't have meaning, but I will argue that recognition of a meaning doesn't explain what that meaning is. All we are left with is our own interpretations without a key to unlocking the symbols.
quote:aside from forming the sign of the chalice AND forming a deliberate "M" shape in the center of the table,
I don't believe it forms either a chalice or an M, and much less of a chance for an M formation. It is an uncomplete M that I believe has more artistic than symbolic uses. The lines allow for the viewer to go from Christ to Peter and back to Christ. If anything it represents the authoritative relationships between the two. I believe the related colors of the clothing solidify this relationship.
quote:closer review of the painting reveals that several of the other disciples are making threatening gestures toward the Magdalene--a hand slices across her neck, for example.
Hardly several. The attention isn't on the Peter figure, but on Christ who just told them something shocking. Almost all of them are pointing, again, to Christ. Even the eyes of the one with the "slicing hand" is looking directly toward Christ. At least on of them is pointing toward themself. Others have hands up as if realing from the idea of the accusation.
quote:Elsewhere a dagger/knife is being held by a disembodied hand. One could say that it appears the disciples are trying to pull her away from Christ
I just don't see the dagger. And, it doesn't appear the disciples are trying to pull her/him away from Christ. They are trying to pull themselves away in case they are the ones who are the culprit.
Besides, why aren't there 13, rather than 12, disciples? One of them, if Mary was there, would be missing. Before you say that Judas has left, that would go against the Scriptures where he left after this particular event. People in DiVinci's time would catch this anomily fast.
Perhaps the modern art era has lasted so long that we see its methods where none existed.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And the plot was so contrived as to be ludicrous more times than I'd like to think about (did a lot of mental groaning while I was listening). *But* I didn't gong it ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
