The Da Vinci Code and The Last Supper | Evidence To Believe The Da Vinci Code and The Last Supper The Da Vinci Code and The Last Supper What does The Da Vinci Code have to do with Leonardo’s painting “The Last Supper”? Several outlandish claims are being made in reference to this famous painting by Dan Brown in his novel, The Da Vinci Code. – here are some examples: Dan Brown uses the painting to promote the idea that Da Vinci painted Mary Magdalene into “the last supper”, at the right hand of Jesus: P.243: The person to the right of Jesus is recognized by Sophie in the book as a woman: “The individual had flowing red hair, delicate folded hands, and the hint of a bosom. It was, without a doubt … female”. “That’s a woman!”, exclaimed Sophie. Brown is fond of saying that we see only what we want to see. Take care to note that Leonardo portrayed other masculine biblical characters with a feminine appearance – in his work Saint John the Baptist (c. 1413-1416)4, St.

John the Baptist – a very ruddy character according to biblical records – is depicted as a feminine character with long flowing hair and delicate hands. Is it any surprise that John the Apostle might be depicted in a similar fashion? And if one inspects “The Last Supper” carefully, there is in fact is no hint of a bosom – unless one wants to see that in the painting. He further promotes the notion that the “holy grail” is missing from the painting because Leonardo was trying to communicate a secret message – ie., that “the Holy Grail” was not a physical drinking cup, but rather the womb of Mary Magdalene! But why do we expect to see a large chalice emblazoned with the letters “The Holy Grail”? Only if we fall for legend and popular lore. Look closely at the painting, and you will see that Jesus, as well as His followers, all have drinking cups. Jesus’ cup (“the holy grail”) is next to his left hand, while His right hand is extended over a piece of bread.1 First Things First First, lets get some basic facts straight.

Leonardo was not at “the last supper”, which occurred some 1,500 years before he was born. He was painting his interpretation, in accordance with his painting style, of what took place at “the last supper”. If we want the facts, we have to go back to the earliest historical records of what transpired – the gospels. Leonardo was not a bible scholar, and indeed may have had his own agenda in terms of notions he wanted to portray in his paintings. If we want the facts, we have to go back to the earliest historical records. The earliest historical records (the New Testament gospels) record that Jesus and the twelve apostles were present at the last supper. There are also twelve persons at the table in the painting, plus Jesus. There is no indication in the gospel records that Mary Magdalene was present, much less seated at the right hand of Jesus. Dan Brown makes the point in his book that the reason people don’t notice that the person in the painting next to Jesus is a woman is because of our “preconceived notions” (p 243). Is it possible that Dan Brown has a preconceived notion about what he wants to see in the painting?

Perhaps he sees Mary Magdalene there because he wants to see her there. Perhaps others of us are doing the same thing. The Gospels Show that Mary Was Not Present at The Last Supper According to the three synoptic gospels, the twelve apostles were present with Jesus at the last supper. No mention is made of Mary Magdalene or anyone else being present at the supper: Matthew 26:20: “Now when evening had come, He sat down withthe twelve.” Mark 14:17: “In the evening He came with the twelve. Now as they sat and ate …” Luke 22:14: “And when the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him.” The twelve apostles that appear in the painting “The Last Supper” are listed in Mark 3:16-19 as: Simon Peter Simon the Cananite Judas Iscariot John’s gospel records the last supper activities in John Chapter 13. Although it doesn’t specifically say “the twelve” sat down with Him, as in the synoptic gospels, we may infer from the context that it was the twelve who were present.

There is no mention in John’s gospel that Mary Magdalene was present. Here is the sequence of events as recorded in John: V2: “supper being ended” — supper wraps up V4: [Jesus] “rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself.” V5-11: Jesus washes his apostles feet V12: Jesus sits down again V13-17: Jesus explains why He washed their feet – to provide them with an example of what it means to be a servant V18-19: Jesus mentions a prophecy concerning the betrayal by Judas that would soon happen V 21: Jesus announces the betrayal to those present: “Most assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.” V 22: “Then the disciples looked at one another, perplexed about whom He spoke.” V 23-25: These verses show that a male was the one leaning on Jesus’ breast, and that Peter was asking this disciple who it was that Jesus was speaking about: “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.

Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who it was of whom He spoke. Then, leaning back on Jesus’ breast, he said to Him, “Lord, who is it?” This clearly shows that the person to Jesus right was a male, precluding even the possibility that the person could have been Mary Magdalene. Who Were The Three Persons to Jesus’ Right? Noted art critic Leo Steinberg has analyzed Leonardo’s “The Last Supper” in minute detail in his work “Leonardo’s Incessant Last Supper”. According to Steinberg, the painting suffered from “the impoverishment of its content down to pure psychodrama”.2 Leonardo was painting his interpretation of two key events that the gospels record occurred at “the last supper”- the consecration of the Eucharist, and the betrayal of Jesus to the authorities by Judas. According to the Dictionary of Art, the consecration of the Eucharist is evident by Christ’s gesture toward the bread and wine, and this would have been readily understood by Leonardo’s contemporaries.3 The betrayal of Jesus by Judas is evident in the way the disciples are depicted. According to Steinberg, St.

Andrew (from left to right) is followed by Peter, Judas and John. “the three whose identity in the mural was never doubted”.2 There are distinct qualities about each of these apostles: Peter’s intense lurching forward, holding a knife (prefiguring his use of the sword later in the Garden when Jesus was taken Judas recoiling and grasping the bag of money (Judas was entrusted with the group’s money – see John 13:29) John’s youthful appearance and contemplative pose According to art critic Steinberg, the grouping of Peter, Judas and John is purposeful. These three had key roles in the Passion of Christ: Judas would later betray Jesus, Peter would deny Him (thrice), and John – “the disciple whom Jesus loved” – was the only Apostle who remained at the cross when Jesus was crucified (John 19:26-27). Steinberg also notes that there are “significant pairs” portrayed in the painting. For example, Peter and John are depicted as a pair with their heads together, illustrating their close companionship (Peter and John are often mentioned together in the gospels (see Luke 22:8)).

This pose depicts their “active and contemplative life”.2 Furthermore, art critics interpret the pose of Peter and John one that connoted trust and intimacy. One observation is that the pose conveys Peter’s surprise, and him asking John to repeat what Jesus has just said, so stunned was the head apostle at the prophecy of betrayal.1 The Evidence Shows That it was Not Mary but a Male Follower The Da Vinci Code tries to make the case that the Disciple sitting at the right hand of Jesus – which the gospel of John refers to the one “whom Jesus loved” – is non other than Mary Magdalene. We noted above that in John’s gospel, V 23-25, that this person is a male – not a female. So then who is this disciple? John’s gospel records that it was a male disciple, most probably John – the author of John’s gospel – as the one “whom Jesus loved”: John 19:25-27 These two verses describe the people who were at the cross when Jesus was crucified.

This group included Mary Magdalene, other women, AND a man referred to as “the disciple whom He loved“: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus Him mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother: “Woman, behold you son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

John 20:2, 8 Here Mary Magdalene is running back from the empty tomb to tell the news to Peter and “the other disciple whom Jesus loved” Again, it is stated that this is a male:V2: “Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved..” V8: “Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed.” John 21:7 Here again that disciple is with Peter (the “pair” mentioned above):“Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter: “It is the Lord!” John 21:20 In this verse it is reiterated that John was the one leaning on Jesus’ breast at the last supper: “Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said “Lord, who is the one who betrays you?” Other Da Vinci Code Claims Refuted Brown claims that the open “V” space between John and Jesus is the focal point of the painting, and represents the Grail and the womb of Mary Magdalene. But upon inspection this does not hold up to scrutiny.

Jesus, at the center of the painting and framed by the dramatic backdrop of three windows, is, according to noted art critic Steinberg, clearly “the focal point of the painting”. Conclusions Leonardo was was interpreting in his own style his vision of activities that transpired at the last supper It should not surprise us that John, seated to the right of Jesus, was portrayed by Leonardo with long flowing hair and a gentle, if feminine, appearance. Leonardo was known to have painted other biblical characters in a feminine manner. The evidence shows that the Leonardo’s The Last Supper was depicting two key activities that were taking place at the time: the consecration of the Eucharist, and the betrayal of Jesus to the authorities by Judas. There is no evidence that it had anything to do with portraying a relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. There is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was even presentat the last supper. However all three synoptic gospels state that the twelve apostles were with Jesus at the event. The “disciple whom Jesus loved” who is depicted as listening to Peter in the painting is referred to as a male in John’s gospel, and thus could not have been Mary Magdalene.

Since this same “loved disciple” was present at the cross in addition to Mary Magdalene, this disciple could not have been anyone other that John the apostle. The person portrayed to Jesus’ right in Leonardo’s “The Last Supper” painting is non other than the effeminate appearing John the apostle – not Mary Magdalene (although many may wish it to be otherwise). See The Da Vinci Code Last Supper For Yourself Link to high resolution of Leonardo Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” (with zoom capability): Carl. E. Olson and Sandra Miesel, “The Da Vinci Hoax”, by Ignatius. P 261-279. Leo Steinberg, “Leonardo’s Incessant Last Supper” (New York: Zone Books) 2001 Turner, “Dictionary of Art”, 19:189 St. John the Baptist, 1513-16, Panel Musee de Louve, Paris. Biblical quotes from the “New Open Bible, New King James Version”, Nelson Like this: The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci The Hand of the Mysteries Was it a 'Passover'? Definitely not!

The meal was set the day before 'Good Friday' - the day Jesus was crucified. The feast of the Passover began at sunset on that day so this meal was a day too early and, looking out the windows in the background, too early in the day. Also the picture shows Jesus and the disciples seated. The passover is traditionally eaten reclining. If you read your bible you will find: Matthew 26.2 "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of man will be delivered up to be crucified." 26.3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Ca'iaphas, 26.4 and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 26.5 But they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult among the people." John 13.1 Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to... The food The table shows leavened bread (yet another reason it could not be the Passover), fish, wine and some type of herb present.

To me there also appears to be cheese present. There is no sign of lamb which would traditionally have been eaten at the passover. The Cups/Glasses/Wine/Plates There are twelve glasses shown to be present, each containing a red wine. It would be normal to drink wine with the meal - water was often contaminated. The glasses were odd however. Glass was popular with the Romans of the time but the conservative Jews would have drunk from goblets made from clay or wood. Only the wealthy would have drunk from metal goblets. The same is true of metal plates, several of which are shown. There's no pitcher or jug shown from which the glasses could have been refilled. There is a small, apparently empty, glass bottle, but this is too small to have contained the wine needed. The instant depicted This is supposed to be the moment when Jesus, in the words of John says "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me". The picture shows the reaction of the disciples to this. What's that bit centre bottom?

Around 1652, some unknown vandal decided to insert another door into the refectory and apparently decided that the only logical spot for it was smack in the middle of that wall where Leonardo had painted Christ's feet. The only evidence we have of what the original painting looked like was an oil paint copy made in the 16th centaury and now housed in Tongerlo Abbey , Antwerp Move your pointer into or out of the picture to compare it with the original The Tongerlo Abbey copy, itself is believed to have been painted from an earlier copy by Giampietrino, a contemporary of Leonardo. His copy was made around 1520 and is oil paint on canvas. It was full size but at some point the canvas was cut down at the top and sides. it shows a great deal of detail and is believed to be a faithful reproduction of the original.

Just to complicate matters there's also a different version of the picture in a tapestry shown below: Move your pointer into or out of the picture to compare it with the original Follow @JChapmanAuthor The Knife Due to it's poor condition there has been some argument about the owner of the hand holding the knife (or, as some call it, - a dagger): The theories are: The hand belongs to John/Mary (whoever you choose to believe they are). Peter is holding his/her wrist. Andrew, who sees this, is horrified at this. The hand belongs to a separate, obscured person, probably John, with Mary shown at the right. The hand holding the knife belongs to Peter - he has it twisted backwards away from Judas . Let's look at each theory in turn: Here's an image which has been doctored to remove Judas. Notice anything odd? If that knife is being held by John/Mary then he/she has arms like a gorilla! Would Leonardo have made a mistake like this? There's also the evidence of John/Mary's fingers intertwined in front of him/her! This suggestion assumes that the feminine figure at the right in the image is Mary Magdalene.

In that case John, the youngest of the disciples is missing. The idea is that the hand belongs to John who is obscured by Peter and Judas. I find this very unlikely. If it were true - where exactly would John be? Maybe he dropped his glass? The last suggestion is that Peter is holding the knife at a very odd angle. The 'copies' suggest that this is the case and so too does this sketch by Leonardo - clearly that knife in the hand of Peter gave him some problems and he decided to practice. John or Mary Magdalene? In the fictional book ' The Da Vinci Code ', Daniel Brown has his character Teabing suggest that the figure seated to Jesus' right is not the disciple John but is instead Mary Magdalene. The theory, suggested several times in the past, is that Jesus married Mary and after the crucifixion she had a child by him. I must admit that to my eye 'John' does look very effeminate. But is that enough evidence for the figure being Mary? We need to consider the following: Would the Church of the time have allowed this?

It was 'normal' at the time for a young man, and John was the youngest of the disciples, to be portrayed as effeminate . Not only Leonardo did this. Leonardo is suspected to have been a homosexual. The end wall of the refectory of the Dominican convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie . Views of some others In the film 'The Da Vinci Code', the character Teabing shows that John/Mary can be moved and will fit exactly on Jesus' shoulder. I wondered if this was true for any others so played about with the picture in the same way: Jesus and 'Mary' James and 'Mary' Andrew and 'Mary' Seem it's not so remarkable after all Mr Teabing, in fact you can even almost make 'Mary' fit on Judas' shoulder! Teabing also makes the claim that Peter makes a threatening gesture over 'Mary's' throat. Sorry - I don't see this and if it were so then 'she' does not look the least concerned about this. I've also seen some websites claiming that Judas is the only disciple leaning away from Jesus.

They must be blind since on the left Andrew, Judas and John lean away and on the right Matthew and Thaddeus lean away. Incidentally did you know that there are over 400,000 pages referring to this painting of which 50,000 also refer to Daniel Brown's book ' The Da Vinci Code '? 1750 entries also refer to an earlier book ' The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ ' by written by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince in 1997. 750 refer to an even earlier book Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln (Even Daniel Brown refers to this book within his story and the character 'Leigh Teabing' seems to be a combination of 'Richard Leigh' and an anagram of 'Baigent') The Slavisa Pesci theory Slavisa Pesci caused a huge increase in traffic to Last Supper websites (This page got 12 times it's normal traffic) when he announced that by superimposing a semi-transparent mirror image of The Last Supper over the original then new features would be revealed.

The claim is that: A figure would be revealed holding a baby A chalice would appear in front of Christ A figure would appear resembling a Templar knight Let's see if these claims are valid. In the picture below I've superimposed a mirror image of the original picture and aligned the images on Christ. The mirror image has been made 50% transparent. Here it is: Not a great image is it! It requires a great deal of imagination to see a baby or a chalice. The Templar Knight is clearly Simon mixed with the arm of Bartholomew. I'm pretty sure Leonardo didn't intend for Christ to be portrayed as a cyclops either! Perhaps it's just that the image isn't aligned properly? Here it is again with the windows and arches aligned: Now this time although I can make out the Templar knight sat at each end of the table and a vague chalice in front of Jesus but the rest is just a mess! Maybe I'm using the wrong picture. After all the original has lost a lot of it's original colour.

Let's try the same thing using the painting from the Tongerlo Abbey: Now this time I can make out an even vaguer chalice in front of Christ and this time, centring the image on Christ's nose also aligns the archways. But the baby and the Templar knight? Can you see them? Moving the image to try different alignments does not improve it in any way and none of the three effects becomes more noticeable. Finally I tried intensifying the colour, contrast and sharpness of the image and experimented with different levels of transparency. Making the mirror image 70% transparent seemed to produce the best effect. The result is shown below and you can compare it with the original image (also adjusted for colour, contrast and sharpness) by moving your mouse over the image. This time you can clearly make out the Templar knight on the left and Phillip now holds a baby (Peter's head) but the chalice? It's not visible at these settings. Let's assume that this effect was deliberately planned by Leonardo. There's not much point in it unless it could be made visible in the time of Leonardo. The question is How would Leonardo have made this visible in his era?

After all he didn't have Photoshop and a computer available to demonstrate it. Perhaps he made a copy of the painting on paper, oiled it to make it transparent and then looked through his reversed copy at the original? Seems a little unlikely to me! Sorry Slavisa Pesci - without totally distorting the pictures in a way Leonardo would not have approved of, I don't think your theory holds water. Finally there is now a site which allows you to study any area of the painting in close up, high definition . You'll need Flash, the site is in Italian and can take a while to load but it's worth a visit since it allows you to see more detail than a visit to the original The Hand of the Mysteries Leonardo Da Vinci The Last Supper Home > Art History > Leonardo Da Vinci The Last Supper In this installment of Leonardo Da Vinci The Last Supper part 3 you'll discover the real code behind this painting! Well, let's start deciphering. And of course when we are finished with this article, I'll surprise you with the most intriguing secret yet!

"The Last Supper" is a 15th century mural painting in Milan done by Leonardo for the Duke Ludovico Sforza and his duchess Beatrice d’Este. Includes Free Chapter It is a scene that represents the final days of Jesus as narrated in the Gospel of John 13:21, when Jesus announces a betrayal by one of the twelve. The painting measures 460 × 880 centimeters (15 feet × 29 ft) and covers the back wall of the dining hall at Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Italy. This is a normal theme for refectories, (dining hall in a monastery) but in this particular example, Leonardo pulls out all the stops to push the envelope of realism and depth. The below painting is a copy and is shown for better clarity as the original is in such sad shape. The painting is ripe with the reactions of each of the Apostles to the news and from left to right explained: • Bartholomew, James, son of Alphaeus, and Andrew are all surprised. They also form a group of three, I’ll tell you about that significance in a moment.

• Juda Iscariot, Peter and John (another grouping of three) each have their own story. Judas, is withdrawn and taken aback. He clutches a small bag and this is believed to be normal as he was treasurer of the group. It also signifies his blood money. Peter looks angry and clutches a knife to defend Jesus. And the youngest apostle, John, just flat out faints. Back to the top of Leonardo Da Vinci The Last Supper Jesus, the center of "The Last Supper" (below) • Thomas, James the Greater, and Philip the next group of three. Thomas is upset, James is stunned with his arms flying out in disbelief. Philip looks like he’s asking for an explanation. • Matthew, Jude Thaddeus and Simon the Zealot are the last group of three. Jude and Matthew are turned to Simon looking for answers. So now we ask, in Leonardo Da Vinci The Last Supper how do we really know who is seated where? We didn’t for a very long time, but now we can unravel this mystery and understand some of the code! Someone has found Leonardo’s manuscripts! “The Notebooks Leonardo Da Vinci” And it’s a free download.

Manuscript link! Go check out page 232. There all kinds of neat stuff in there. Like scuba diving and snorkeling inventions, Para-sailing and many other cool stuff that he thought about and made notes on! But I get off track, so back to our painting! The whole scene is revolving around Jesus’ prediction of betrayal. Leonardo creates a very dramatic and realistic scene by having Judas in shadow (the bad guy). He also creates an engaging means to explain why Judas takes the bread at the same time as Jesus. Judas is far left in the below photo and looking back at Jesus. Jesus is shown saying this to Thomas and James to his left, who react in horror as Jesus points with his left hand to a piece of bread in front of them. Judas, being distracted by the conversation between John and Peter, is also reaching for a piece of bread while at the same time, Jesus is reaching for the same piece with his right hand. Judas doesn’t see Jesus reaching for it and thus the scripture (Matt. 26:23) becomes plausible.

Some Bible translations say “dip his hand with me”, other say “sop bread with me”, but the main point is he (Judas) does something with Jesus in plain view of the rest of the disciples, and none take notice enough to get up and stomp him! Didn't I tell you I'd give you one of the most intriguing secrets yet! Now tell me, did any of you know that bit of "code" about this painting? Leonardo has answered a question that been in my mind since I was a young lad trying to understand why the other Apostles didn’t see this and commence to break out a can of whoop a**. Wow! Another interesting point, all angles and lighting draw attention to Jesus, whose head is located at the vanishing point of the painting. Now this was some major pre-planning on Leonardo’s part. And finally, about that number 3 I mentioned earlier. This is believed to reference the Holy Trinity. Groupings of 3 Apostles, the 3 windows behind Jesus, 3 sides of a triangle that shapes Jesus’ figure and outstretched arms, all are telling you there is something important about that number three!

So now that you know all this incredible stuff, you can brag to your friends the next time you come across a copy or reference of the worlds 2nd most famous paintings! Did you know that there are only 17 Leonardo Da Vinci paintings that we think he created? Unfortunately, if you live in America, you gotta be able to travel to see any of them, and right now, there is only one here in the US! Click below here to find out which of the 17 paintings this is, and where you can find it! Focus On Last Supper Site Credits Focus On Last Supper Written by leading scholars, the Focus On essays are designed to stimulate thought and to explore in depth topics of interest in the field of Biblical studies. New essays on specific themes, with links to related content within the site for further reading, are published throughout the year. All visitors to Oxford Biblical Studies Online can access these essays, but related content links in Previous Features are available to subscribers only. Please visit the full collection of Focus On essays. Update Alert Service: to receive an email notice and details when a new Focus On article or site update is posted, sign up for Oxford Biblical Studies Online update alerts .

Current Feature: The Last Supper Adele Reinhartz Visitors to Milan routinely make a stop at the church of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Italy, for one reason: to stand before one of the most famous art works in the world, Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper, or Il Cenacolo, as it is known in Italian. Leonardo painted this mural in the late fifteenth century, for the refectory, or dining hall, of a monastery at the request of his patron Duke Ludovico Sforza and his duchess Beatrice d'Este. The mural captures the precise moment narrated in John 13:21-26 when Jesus, in the course of his last meal with his disciples, suddenly announces: "Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me" ( 13:21 ). The disciples are shocked and suddenly fearful: Who could it be? They look at one another in suspicion. Leonardo's painting depicts the moment that Peter, the disciples' spokesman, motions to the young man sitting next to Jesus to ask Jesus to identify his betrayer ( 13:24 ).

In the very next moment, the disciple will ask Jesus, "Lord, who is it?" And Jesus will respond: "It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish" ( 13:26 ). If one can imagine this tableau as the first in a series, the panels that follow would show Jesus dipping the bread, giving it to Judas, and in this way set in motion the dramatic chain of events that leads inexorably to Jesus' crucifixion on Golgotha. At first glance, Leonardo's decision to line the participants up on one side of a banquet table seems strange; after all, would this arrangement not have hindered table conversation? It seems much more reasonable to seat the disciples around a table, as in this fourteenth-century fresco by one of Leonardo's famous predecessors, Giotto: But the moment we walk into the refectory and see Leonardo's depiction on the wall, it becomes obvious that Leonardo's Jesus is not hosting a private dinner, as seems to be the case in the gospels, but rather presiding over the head table of every meal shared by those who broke bread in that refectory.

Jesus' central position in the painting reminds the diners that they come together for a meal that is not merely for their physical and individual sustenance, but also for their spiritual and communal benefit. Indeed, they would not be dining together at all, and certainly not in a building known as a church, were it not for Jesus himself, and especially, his death on the cross. But Jesus is not merely there as a reminder of the Christian context of the meal. His calm demeanor and outstretched arms, which contrast too strikingly with the dynamic tension exhibited by his own dinner companions, identify him as the host of the meal. All who gaze upon the painting are invited. Jesus, however, invites us not merely to dine before him, but to enter into the painting and break bread with him. In accepting this invitation, we are somewhat in a quandary. Where shall we sit? None of the disciples is looking in our direction, and none seems prepared to welcome newcomers to the table. The disciples in Giotto's fresco are sitting in quiet and reverent silence, solemn but calm, so calm, indeed, that one of them—the Beloved Disciple—is asleep next to Jesus.

We might well imagine sliding onto a bench alongside any one of them. The disciples in Leonardo's painting, by contrast, are engaged in heated discussion. Here Leonardo has drawn not only upon John's Last Supper scene but also from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), in which disciples ask Jesus in horror "Surely, not I!" ( Mark 14:19 ; Matthew 26:22 ) and debate, naively and arrogantly, which one of them is the best or greatest of them all ( Luke 22:24 ). Leonardo has arranged the disciples in four groups of three disciples each. If their animated gestures prevent us from slipping in quietly, we must consciously decide which group to join, that is, with which disciples to identify ourselves. Are we like Bartholomew, James, son of Alphaeus, and Andrew, who comprise the group to the far left of the painting? They seem surprised and uncertain, as they eagerly await Jesus' identification of the traitor in their midst. Or are we like their counterparts at the far right of the painting, Matthew, Jude Thaddeus, and Simon the Zealot , who are disputing among themselves?

Perhaps we should join the group closest to Jesus' left hand. These are Apostles Thomas, James the Greater and Philip. It seems that they are asking "Is it I?" and demanding recognition of themselves as the greatest among the disciples. Or perhaps we belong to the group to Jesus' immediate right. This group is far from unified; indeed, they represent the extremes when it comes to devotion to and faith in Jesus. The middle figure of the three, whose head is poking through between the other two, is Peter, traditionally known as Jesus' right hand man, the rock on whom Jesus' church will be built, and the one to whom Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom of heaven ( Matthew 16:18-19 ). He would be a fine person with whom to identify. Could we possibly feel ourselves, in secret, more like Judas, the disciple to Peter's right (or immediately to the left of Peter from the viewer's perspective)? Judas shrinks away from Jesus in fear, as he clutches the money bag that exemplifies his role as the group's treasurer and symbolizes the greed that has led him to accept thirty silver coins as payment for betraying Jesus. Surely we cannot be like Judas!

Finally, our eyes fall upon the most important disciple, the one with whom we should all ideally identify. This is the disciple who is immediately to Jesus' left from our perspective, that is, to Jesus' own right hand within the painting. This disciple is the so-called Beloved Disciple, traditionally identified as John, son of Zebedee, though his true identity is in fact not known. He is the only one among his colleagues to shares Jesus' calm demeanor. His smooth face, youthful appearance, and long hair have led some to imagine that he is not a man but a woman, perhaps even Mary Magdalene, whom modern novelists such as José Saramago and Dan Brown have linked romantically with Jesus, and about whom ancient Christians also speculated. Intriguing as this speculation is, the Gospel of John, Leonardo's main source, clearly identifies this disciple as the male disciple, known as the one whom Jesus loved, whose devotion to Jesus was unquestioned and unquestioning, and who exemplifies ideal discipleship.

Here is where the viewer, and the diner, is meant to be: at Jesus' right hand, in perfect confidence with him, with perfect faith, as demonstrated by the meal that the diner himself or herself can partake with Jesus, namely, the Eucharist. Leonardo has created an image that invites us into the story, and into faith. Whether we engage in this imaginative exercise or choose not to do so will depend on our own theological perspective and religious affiliations. But wherever we stand, we cannot help but marvel at the way in which this painting brings to life—at the same time as it interprets—the most dramatic moment in the gospel accounts. Of course, Leonardo does not address the event's historical and theological issues that resist scholarly resolution. Perhaps the most important historical issue concerns the chronology of this Last Supper vis-à-vis the Jewish Passover. That Jesus dined with his disciples on the night before his betrayal is an early tradition, mentioned not only by the gospels but also by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 . While all four gospels stage the Last Supper on a Thursday evening, they vary as to its timing with regard to the Passover.

In the Synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper takes place on the first night of Passover, and for that reason it is a Passover seder, the traditional feast that celebrates the Israelites' Exodus from Egypt (see Exodus 12 ). In John, however, the Last Supper takes place on the night before the Passover and for that reason is not a Passover seder but an ordinary meal. Within the context of Jewish observance, the Johannine chronology seems more likely. It does not seem realistic to think that the Jewish authorities would have interrupted their own Passover celebrations and observances in order to arrest Jesus and preside over his interrogation, as the Synoptic Gospels suggest. Both the Johannine and Synoptic chronologies have strong theological symbolism. While such symbolism does not in and of itself rule out the historicity of the event and its chronological placement on or before the Passover, we may well wonder whether and to what degree the gospels' theology has shaped the narrative at this point.

In John, the chronology results in a situation whereby Jesus is crucified at the precise moment that the Passover lambs were slaughtered, whereas in the Synoptics, the timing of the Last Supper has Jesus talking about the necessity to eat the bread (Jesus' body) and drink the wine (Jesus' blood) at the same meal at which it was traditional to eat the Passover sacrifice. For John and the Synoptics alike, Passover symbolism reinforces the belief that provides divine salvation for humankind, in the same way that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb represents God's entering into history to save Israel from Egyptian bondage. Paul's references to the Lord's Supper suggest that already within a short time, perhaps a decade or two, after Jesus' death, the eating of bread and drinking of wine in remembrance of Christ had become part of Christian ritual. In writing to the Corinthians, a Gentile community of believers in Christ that Paul had founded, Paul describes Jesus' words on this matter in a way that is similar to Luke's version, and then emphasizes: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord" ( 1 Corinthians 11:26-27 ; cf. 1 Cor 11:23-25 ). What it actually means, theologically, spiritually, experientially, to participate in the Last Supper varies considerably across the spectrum of Christian churches and communities. But at the very least, the practice invites believers, from the time of the earliest church to the present, to participate commemoratively in Jesus' final meal with his disciples, and thereby to enter into the drama of his life story, and, for many, reconfirm their connection to and faith in Jesus as the Christ. For all, however, believers or not, Leonardo's wonderful painting takes us into that moment of fellowship right before it all changes, for Jesus and for history. Bibliography Brown, Raymond Edward. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 1st ed, The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Ehrman, Bart D. Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Feeley-Harnik, Gillian. The Lord's Table: Eucharist and Passover in Early Christianity, Symbol and Culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981. ——. The Lord's Table: The Meaning of Food in Early Judaism and Christianity. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994. Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible. Rev. ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998. Loverance, Rowena, and British Museum. Christian Art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007. Marjanen, Antti. The Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1996.

Schaberg, Jane, and Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre. Mary Magdalene Understood. New York: Continuum, 2006. Schiller, Gertrud. Iconography of Christian Art. 1st American ed. Greenwich, Conn.: New York Graphic Society, 1971. Segal, Judah Benzion. The Hebrew Passover, from the Earliest Times to A.C. 70. London; New York: Oxford University Press, 1963. Steinberg, Leo. Leonardo's Incessant Last Supper. New York: Zone Books, 2001. Leonardo da Vinci. The Last Supper - Olga's Gallery Olga's Gallery Tweet Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper is one of the artist's most well-known works and, together with the Mona Lisa , was one of the two paintings that helped establish Leonardo's fame as a painter. The work was commissioned by the Duke Lodovico Sforza, Leonardo's patron, for the refectory (dining hall) of the convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie, in Milan, Italy.

The wall painting, which Leonardo worked on between 1495 and 1498, is not a true fresco. The painter chose not to paint the piece on wet plaster, since that would severely limit the amount of time he could spend on the work. Instead he sealed the stone wall with a layer of resin (pitch and mastic) and chalk (gesso), and then painted over the sealing layer with tempera. Unfortunately, though this technique allowed him to depict the scene in exquisite detail, it did not prove very durable. The piece began deteriorating within only a few years after it was finished. Scene Composition The finished size of the painting was 4.6 by 8.8 meters (roughly 15 by 29 feet). While the theme was a traditional one for refectories of the time, Leonardo's realistic style and dramatic depiction of the figures imbued the work with much more realism and depth, influencing all later paintings of the Last Supper.

Specifically, Leonardo's work shows the moment after Jesus has announced that one of those sitting at the table will betray him (this episode is described in Matthew 26:21-22; Mark 14:18-19; Luke 22:21-23; and John 13:21-22). The twelve apostles react with various degress of outrage and shock. The lines of perspective meet in Christ's right eye, thus making him the central figure of the painting. The rest of the scene is organized in order to emphasize this centrality. Leonardo grouped the apostles into four groups of three, with Jesus in the middle. From left to right are, they are: Group One: Bartholomew, James the Lesser and Andrew form the first group of three, all of them appearing surprised. Andrew holds both of his hand up in front of him in a frightened gesture. Group Two: Judas Iscariot, Simon Peter and John form the second group of three. Judas is holding a bag of silver in his right hand, while reaching for a piece of bread with his left.

Simon Peter is leaning over the shoulder of John, a knife held in his right hand, symbolizing his zealous defence of Jesus. John appears to be swooning. Prior to Leonardo, it had been traditional to isolate Judas from the rest of the apostles by either seating him across the table from Jesus, apart from the others who were traditionally depicted as sitting on only one side, or by giving all the rest of the apostles and Jesus haloes, and excluding Judas. Leonardo created a more subtle and thus dramatic effect by swathing Judas in shadow. He also presented a realistic explanation of Christ's prophetic words that the first man to share bread with him would also be the betrayer: Jesus and Judas are shown reaching for the same piece of bread, although everybody's attention is riveted elsewhere. Group Three: The third group is made of Thomas, James the Great and Phillip. These three appear in varying degrees of shock; Thomas, with his hand raised, and Phillip seem to be requesting some sort of explanation, while James the Great, between them, appears to be recoiling from Jesus in horror.

Group Four: The last three, Matthew, Jude Thaddeus and Simon the Zealot appear to be discussing the matter with each other, in a rendition of Luke 22:23: "They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this." Despite the theory popularized by Dan Brown in his popular novel, The Da Vinci Code, most scholars agree that the figure next to Jesus is John. The notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci name all of the disciples in the order in which they are shown (which is how we come to identify them) and all of the figures in Leonardo's original sketches have distinctly male faces. It had been traditional to depict John as boyish and even effeminate, as he was the youngest and supposedly most devoted of Christ's apostles. He appears thus in other contemporary renderings of the scene, including The Last Supper of Castagno (1447) and The Last Supper of Ghirlandaio (1480). History of the Painting's Restoration The method in which the painting was executed, on a dry surface, rather than on wet plaster, the traditional method for a fresco, meant that it stood up very poorly to the test of time.

By 1556, the notable contemporary historian of the Renaissance Giorgio Vasari was describing the painting as "ruined", to such a degree that the figures were no longer recognizable. In 1652, a door was cut through the bottom of the painting -- almost completely gone by that time -- and this can be seen in the gray unpainted area immediately below Jesus. The arch was eventually bricked up again. Michelangelo Bellotti was the first artist to try to restore the painting. In 1726, he attempted to paint over the damaged sections with oil paint, and then cover the lot with varnish to preserve it from further deterioration. However, the methods and materials of the time were unequal to the task, and another restoration had to be attempted in 1770, some 44 years later. Giuseppe Mazza completely undid Bellotti's work and started from scratch, essentially re-painting the work. However, he was never allowed to finish, as the public was outraged at what they saw as creative liberties on his part.

In 1796, Napoleon's French troops were stationed around the convent and used the refectory as a makeshift prison, though it is unknown what further damage this caused. In 1821, an attempt was made to move the "fresco" to a safer location. Stefano Barezzi, the expert charged with this task, damaged the painting quite badly before he realized that the work was not a fresco, but had been painted on a dry surface. He attempted to fix the damage he had done, but this only made the situation worse. From 1901 to 1908, Luigi Cavenaghi began a careful cleaning of the painting. He was followed by Oreste Silvestri in 1924, who cleaned the painting further and stabilized those parts that were still intact with stucco. In 1943, during World War II, the convent was struck by a bomb. While sandbags had been put up to protect the painting from bomb splinters, vibration may have caused further damage. After the war, from 1951 to 1954, another cleaning and stabilization was attempted by Mauro Pelliccioli.

It was not until the end of the 20th Century that a major restoration of this key work of art was undertaken. Between 1978 and 1999, under the leadership of Pinin Brambilla Barcilon, a concerted effort was made to reverse the damage caused by time, dirt, pollution and previous restoration attempts and to permanently stabilize the painting. Since the method used for the original painting made it impossible to move, the refectory was sealed off and set up with climate-controlling equipment. A detailed study of the painting was conducted using state-of-the-art methods such as infrared reflectoscopy and microscopic core-sampling. To determine the painting's original shape, the restorers studied Leonardo's sketches, as well as contemporary copies of the painting.Some areas had undergone such extensive damage that the restorers concluded that they were unrestorable and re-painted these areas in subdued watercolors, in order to demonstrate that these were not part of the originial work. The results of the restoration were unveiled on May 28, 1999.

There was considerable controversy over some of the decisions made by the restoration team, which included drastic changes in color, tone, and even the facial features of some of the apostles. The painting today is open for viewing by the general public. Visitors, however, have to book in advance and are not allowed to stay long. Unknown artist of the XVI century. Copy after Leonardo's Last Supper. Oil on canvas. Da Vinci Museum, Abbey of Tongerlo, Tongerlo, Belgium. This copy, almost as large as the original, displays a wealth of detail, which is no longer visible in Leonardo's wall-painting due to the extensive damage it has suffered.

Question: In the Painting ‘The Last Supper’ by Leonardo Da Vinci, who is said to be seated on the right-hand side of Jesus?
Answer: Judas Escariot