“To me, it [the Mona Lisa] was merely a serene and subdued face and there an end. There might be more in it, but I could not find it. The complexion was bad; in fact, it was not even human. There are no people that color.”
The Da Vinci Code is not the first intriguing conspiracy theory to make the claim that clues are imbedded in artwork. On an FM radio station in 1969, a listener called in and began pointing out some very unusual things he found on the album covers and in the song lyrics of the Beatles. Paul McCartney was always set apart in curious ways, and when the cryptic clues were all put together, they seemed to indicate that he had died and been replaced by a duplicate. We were shocked because we'd been preaching a similar message for the previous two years without ever meeting anyone who noticed these clues. John Lennon actually put a line in the song “Glass Onion”, that went: “Here’s another clue for you all, the Walrus was Paul.” From there the story was picked up by newspapers around the country, and it became a minor sensation. There were literally dozens of clues and the mystery was so spell-binding, you could easily get engrossed for hours without ever confronting the obvious question: Was the conspiracy theory even possible? How likely is it that Paul McCartney had really died and been replaced by a double to keep the Beatles afloat? When the question was posed to a studio musician who had recently worked with McCartney, he observed that, “Even if that is an imposter, what does it matter? He’s every bit as talented as the original.” Wisdom is a beautiful thing. While it’s certainly possible that a dead-ringer for McCartney could be found (this happened when William Campbell won a look-alike contest), what are the chances he’d also be a musical genius with an identical singing voice? There is no chance at all. The conspiracy was a lot of fun, but nothing more. The current phenomenon of The Da Vinci Code is not unlike the “McCartney is dead” conspiracy. Both are quite fascinating and both were probably conceived to generate large sales. According to Dan Brown's book, intriguing clues are hidden in the artwork of Leonardo da Vinci. They supposedly represent his belief that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and the real meaning behind the Holy Grail legend. One thing is certain, though. The clues in The Da Vinci Code have captured the imagination of many readers. But of all the clues, there is only one that really matters. That’s the claim that Mary Magdalene is seated next to Jesus in Da Vinci’s painting, The Last Supper. The reason it’s so important is that most of the other clues become meaningless if that’s not Mary in the painting. If it can be shown that Leonardo had no such thing in mind, then one more pillar of The Da Vinci Code gives way. We’ll get to that in a minute, but right now, let’s look at the priceless way Mary Magdalene was brought into this discussion in the first place. -The Mystery of the Missing Grail- When reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail, it became clear that the best chance of catching the authors' trying to con the reader was when an idea was first introduced. It's not so easy to explain how a big revelation that no one has ever thought of before originally came to you. With that in mind, let's examine the reasoning that supposedly led to the realization that one of the disciples in Da Vinci's Last Supper is a woman. There has to be some logic that can explain how the idea was arrived at. On page 235, Teabing begins probing the mysteries of the painting by insisting that the absence of a “central chalice” is significant. He is quite certain there should be a large, ornate goblet in the painting. Why? Because the last supper that Jesus would ever celebrate, also marked the occasion of the first communion ritual. So Teabing is suspicious that a chalice similar to what Catholics use today isn’t anywhere to be found. But is he really suspicious, or is this just a pretext for introducing Mary? Does his expectation make sense? Not really. The assumption doesn't wash for a variety of reasons. First, the theme of the painting is the shock of the disciples after learning that one of them is a "Judas". Let’s check in with The Da Vinci Code as Teabing is preparing to cross-examine Sophie about the masterpiece. The purpose of this scene is to contrive a reason for bringing Mary Magdalene into the picture (literally). The chicanery is transparent:
The reason “most scholars choose to ignore” what Teabing has to say is that Teabing is a crack-pot. This scene from The Da Vinci Code is like something out of a Salvadore Dali painting. The entire charade is based on the assumption that there should only be one cup for thirteen people. Think about this now. The book actually states that, “Sophie was astonished that everyone at the table had a glass of wine!” Come again? This is a picture of people eating dinner. I suspect that’s why it's called The Last Supper. Maybe Teabing would've been happier if they were all drinking rain water from a Roman soldier’s helmet? Notice how enthusiastic he is here about his crusade to discredit Christianity. In Chapter Two, we saw Dan Brown trying to make him look sympathetic and troubled by this nasty affair. Now, his eyes are "twinkling" and he's "grinning smugly". Obviously, none of this makes much sense, but it does give the author an excuse to introduce his theory, which makes no sense either. After putting on his thinking cap, he decided the reason Leonardo didn’t put a fancy chalice in the picture is because John is obviously Mary Magdalene, so she must be the fancy drinking cup. And despite the fact that no human on earth uttered the phrase, “Holy Grail,” for another twelve hundred years, he’s sure it’s the secret code name for Mary Magdalene! Good grief, even for a writer he's shameless. Did he already forget that just before Teabing started grilling Sophie, she was told The Last Supper was about Judas’ betrayal, rather than the Eucharist? The painting is a snapshot of a single moment in time and does not involve a communion chalice. But now, apparently, the author has changed his mind and The Last Supper celebrates “the definitive arrival of the Holy Grail.” Even if the painting had dealt with Communion, why would you expect to see a large, ornate, solid-silver goblet like one used in a modern mass at the Vatican? Such a thing would hardly have been necessary for twelve people. In addition, Jesus didn’t have much in the way of earthly possessions. The house and utensils they used to celebrate Passover didn’t even belong to them. No doubt they shared one cup for communion, but it wouldn't have been anything fancy. Even when Indiana Jones was searching for the Holy Grail in the movie, The Last Crusade, it was just a small, ordinary drinking cup; “one a carpenter might own,” as Harrison Ford mused. It was because of his belief that the grail was nothing special that he chose the right one from a collection of ornate chalices. This is the same type of cup Leonardo put in his masterpiece. The author also seems to think the Holy Grail legend appears in the Bible. Not to rain on his parade, but there is no Holy Grail; it doesn’t exist. How could the Bible celebrate “the definitive arrival of the Holy Grail” when Jesus' drinking cup wasn't all that important. The disciples wouldn't have saved it for the same reason they didn't save the plate his bread was on - they didn't believe in magical objects. The word “chalice” appears in the New Testament a grand total of zero times. The term “Holy Grail,” on the other hand, is found exactly... zero times. The only phrase that Teabing uses that is found in scripture is "The Cup of Christ.” No, I take that back. That’s not in there either. Here is all the Bible says about this super-magical relic: “When he had taken a cup, and given thanks.” That’s it; end of story. Notice it doesn't say "The Cup", capitalized to show its importance. It’s just a cup. If you want something to get excited about, read the rest of the verse: “Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new covenant; poured out for many, for the forgiveness of sins” [Matt. 26:27]. Ever play Monopoly? This is a get-out-of-jail-free card and it's there for the asking. The people that are the most serious about the Holy Grail are those who have a financial stake in promoting delusions. The Da Vinci Code author repeatedly adopts a condescending attitude toward the Bible as being nothing but myths, and then turns around and embraces any crack-pot idea associated with the legend of the Holy Grail; a very obvious myth. In it's latest manifestation, it's a myth concocted as recently as 1982 in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a book with the credibility of the “Weekly World News.” - Odd Man Out - So The Da Vinci Code uses the idea of a missing grail (that’s not actually missing) to inject Mary Magdalene into the picture. That's not John next to Jesus; that's Mary, who is dubbed a "holy grail" because Mr. Brown is convinced Leonardo was sending him secret messages with the dinnerware. The book tries to make a Mary-for-John switch seem plausible by portraying Leonardo as a weird eccentric, yet his notebooks show his of symbolism was routine. The chance that Leonardo would paint The Last Supper and leave out one of the disciples is very unlikely. The artist was quite meticulous and not easily satisfied. He certainly could have included Mary in the scene, but not at the expense of another disciple, and especially not John. John was special. Christ's affection for him, as well as his trust was such that John was given the responsibility of caring for his mother after the crucifixion. The gospel record puts John next to Jesus at the The Last Supper, with his head resting against his chest. John was not expendable; at least not in Leonardo's era. - The Gender Gap: Is that a Man or a Woman? - There is but one piece of evidence to support the claim that Mary Magdalene is in The Last Supper and it's simply that the person next to Christ looks feminine. The fact that art experts have known this for five hundred years and still insist it's St. John doesn't seem to matter. In fact, all the artists from that era painted John with feminine features, but that doesn't seem to register either. This brings us to point number two. When trying to make judgments about the past, it's necessary to place yourself in the historical framework of that period. Of course Leonardo gave John delicate features in his painting; it would have been very strange if he didn’t. To get a better idea of why John was depicted like this, let’s call on Denise Budd, a Columbia University Ph.D. whose doctoral dissertation was on Leonardo da Vinci:
As you can see, there is a long tradition of painting the apostle John with delicate features. Here are some other works of art that testify on behalf of the truth. You can check them out for yourself on a great website link: home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html. Good work, my friend.
All the above paintings are of St. John from the 14th and 15th centuries, done by artists who were contemporaries of Leonardo (except for the last one). This is a very different universe from the one we live in. It should be clear that Da Vinci's style merely reflected the spirit of the age. This is why it would’ve been strange if he didn’t paint John with delicate features. Even more telling are the three portraits below. They are the work of Leonardo and demonstrate that he didn't restrict his feminine depiction of men to The Last Supper. The painting on the left is Caprotti, one of Da Vinci's male assistants. In the center is a remarkable sketch of the apostle Philip. Beautiful, isn't he? This portrait was originally intended for The Last Supper, so there would have been two "women" in the painting, rather than just one. Finally, on the right is Leonardo's portrait entitled, Young Bacchus, who was a male deity in the Greek pantheon. Did this guy have talent, or what? Has there ever been a scientist and inventor, who also had the sensibilities of an artist? Amazing. Like tastes in fashion or architecture, the perception of gender-related traits is largely determined by one's culture. Can you picture men today donning the long, flowing, powder-white wigs that were all the rage in 18th century Europe? Well, that about does it for the one piece of evidence that supposedly demonstrates that Mary is in The Last Supper; the fact that the disciple next to Jesus looks like a woman. The point was never in question, but it's meaningless. Take one more look at the pictures below. Considering Mr. Brown's wife majored in Art History and did much of his research, it's hard to imagine he wasn't aware of all this. Why would someone promote an idea he knows is false? I can think of 30 million reasons. Yet, "what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul"? Who was it again that said that?
-“Everything is Broken:” The Law of Entropy- There is yet another reason these fringe authors shouldn’t draw sweeping conclusions based on The Last Supper, and that’s the deplorable condition it’s in. Dr. Budd steered us right about the gender issue, so let’s check back with her on this.
Here we see just how atrocious the condition of The Last Supper really is. These are photos of the St. John figure taken before and after the most recent restoration project that concluded in 1998. Dr. Budd’s comments about the poor condition of The Last Supper have an important bearing on the issue at hand. The fact is, the painting is a mess. Even The Da Vinci Code admits its condition is pathetic. The painting is referred to as a “decaying fresco” on page 235, and the book also confirms that figures “have been repainted”. Then, Teabing turns around and claims the reason no one realized there was a woman in the picture before, was because "layers of grime" made it impossible. But supposedly, in 1956, "the fresco was cleaned down to Da Vinci’s original layer of paint”, so now we can easily tell it's Mary. Really? Apparently, it never occurred to the author that there wouldn't have been any repainting done if Leonardo’s original layer of paint had been intact. Contradictions like this are red flags that someone is inventing his facts. Here the author is misleading the reader about things in the real world, not something in the realm of fiction. The only way you can brush it aside, is by assuming that what a person thinks about Christ isn't important. Maybe that's right and maybe it's not, but who likes being lied to? The other problem this raises is that no one can be absolutely sure what the figures originally looked like. There weren't any cameras back then and the painting was already a "faded smudge" only twenty years after it was finished. In addition, since Leonardo needed help from his assistants on this wall-sized fresco, it's always possible that one of them painted the figure of St. John. - Da Vinci Speaks - As of this writing, there are about a hundred million copies of The Da Vinci Code in print worldwide. The movie, which preaches the same message, had already grossed 800 million dollars after only 14 weeks (August, 2006). By comparison, Dan Brown’s previous three books brought in a total of about $20,000. That has changed now, too, of course. Success like that is rare and a testament to his gift as a writer. However, with everything that’s gained, there is usually a price that must be paid. Performing major alterations on some- one’s legacy should not be entered into lightly. Perhaps Leonardo is watching from above and isn’t pleased with the history revision taking place at his expense. He may have found a way to get even. After all, the artist was no occultist and he did embrace Christianity in later years, as his will powerfully attests. This is another fact Mr. Brown conveniently ignores. Leonardo died in the good graces of the church and at peace with his maker, so he’s entitled to all the benefits. Even though we've seen that a feminine looking disciple does not lead to the conclusion that there is a woman in The Last Supper, neither has it been established that it's St. John. To determine whether the person sitting next to Jesus is a man or a woman, we must discover what Leonardo was thinking at the time. His intended meaning is all that really matters here. If we can decipher what was on his mind, we may be able to solve this mystery. On page 665 of The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, we find him engaged in preparing the layout for The Last Supper. He made one entry that seems unimportant on the surface, but on closer inspection, it may help us answer our question. Whatever the meaning, at least it gives us someplace to start. Here he's fashioning the blueprint for his masterpiece. In verses 9 through 14, he wrote the following:
The title of the book you are reading is Da Vinci Speaks. Since it’s based on this short paragraph, you might be thinking that he doesn’t have much to say on this question. That was our reaction, intially, as well. Leonardo seems to be referring to the disciples in a very non-descript way here. It almost sounds like he wasn't concerned with individual identities and just intended to paint twelve generic figures. However, nothing could be further from the truth. On one preliminary sketch of The Last Supper, the artist wrote the following:
Now, if we can establish that one of the disciples Leonardo was describing in his notebook passage is the person seated next to Christ, we have confirmation from the artist, himself, that it's a man. Why? Because lines 9 through 14 specify male pronouns only; eight of them to be exact. So let's see if we can get a positive I.D. on who these disciples are. The editor helps out by explaining what Da Vinci's notebook entry means:
Not exactly an earthshaking revelation. In Leonardo's entry, he appears to be referring to the disciples in a very generic way, when we need him naming names. The editor indicates Da Vinci changed his mind about the layout of The Last Supper. His initial plans are recorded in the notebook, but the finished painting is somewhat different. However, he also makes it clear that much of it remained the same; many of Leonardo's original ideas did not change. This fact turns out to be the key to the mystery. The editor continues:
Clearly, the editor thinks the verses “describe John, Peter and Judas.” He agrees with the consensus of his fellow art historians who identify them as the first three on Christ's right. Closest to Jesus is the feminine looking John; next is Peter with gray hair; third is Judas with black hair, who is “upsetting a salt shaker”. This has been common knowledge since the day The Last Supper was painted. Does this settle the issue? No! Mr. Brown knew this from the outset; his wife majored in Art History. The fact remains that sometimes experts are wrong. It’s too bad Leonardo didn’t paint the disciples wearing name-tags. To settle the question, we can match the layout that appears in Leonardo's painting and notebook, to another source where characters are identified. For that we need to examine The Gospel of John (13:21-25). Because, contrary to what has been written, Leonardo followed the Bible closely and paid careful attention to detail. According to some experts, this was a regular habit with him. Recall that the scene focuses on the moment of shock right after Christ predicts his betrayal. Here is the Gospel account that Da Vinci used to prepare his masterpiece.
Below is the section of The Last Supper with which we are concerned. We need to focus on the first three disciples on the right-hand side of Christ. It's the feminine-looking figure sitting next to him that The Da Vinci Code claims is a woman. According to the Gospel, John was leaning on Jesus when he predicted his betrayal. That would've been the moment just before the one captured in the painting [The custom was to recline on the floor while eating, but artists painted the figures seated at a table, like Da Vinci.]. This verse is the reason John was always placed next to Christ in paintings of the Last Supper.
We’re going to be jumping quickly between The Bible, the painting, and Da Vinci’s notebook, so they’re arranged together above. All three focus on the moment right after Jesus shocks his followers by announcing that one of them will betray him. First, turn your attention to Leonardo’s notebook. In line [9], the first disciple he mentions, “speaks into his neighbor’s ear”. Looking at the painting, we see that this is the second man on Christ’s right [the gray-haired fellow]. Can we determine who this is? From the gospel passage [also above], we see that it must be Peter. He is described as gesturing to John to get his attention. Since John is next to Jesus, Peter wants him to ask who the traitor is. This identifies both Peter and John in the painting at the same time. Also, it should be clear that Peter isn’t threatening anyone with his hand gesture, as Dan Brown claims, but merely tapping John's shoulder because he wants to speak with him. Now back to the notebook. The last half of verse [9] shows that once Peter had moved toward John to make his request known, John leaned toward him “to lend an ear”. We see that this is the exact moment Leonardo captured in his masterpiece. The painting matches the notebook perfectly. Peter has motioned to John to have a word with him, so John leans over to “listen”. But what about the Bible’s version? It doesn’t say anything about John leaning away from Christ, so where did Leonardo get the idea? The Bible may not come out and say it, but Da Vinci was reading between the lines. The gospel version starts by describing the moment right before this scene; with John leaning against Christ. Later, the verse states that “John leaned back on Jesus” to ask about the traitor. He couldn’t have leaned back on Jesus, unless he first leaned forward toward Peter. Such a subtle detail! Leonardo read the gospel account so carefully, he picked-up on something that other artists hadn’t noticed before. This shows pretty clearly Da Vinci didn’t have secret, heretical doctrines on his mind when painting The Last Supper. He was meticulously using The Bible as his guide down to the smallest details. It also puts the identification of Peter and John beyond question. The way Da Vinci describes them in his notes is as clear as if he had used their names instead of pronouns. When we combine the notebook passage with the gospel account, we get the following sequence of events:
For one last point, look at the last half of verse 9 from Da Vinci’s notebook again. He’s describing the person next to Jesus; the one Mr. Brown claims is a woman. In the first six words of the sentence, Leonardo refers to that disciple three times with the male pronoun, “he”:
Talk about overkill. It almost looks as if Leonardo was trying to tell us something. As we’ve already seen, his thinking did not change between the time of the notebook and the painting with respect to the three disciples next to Christ. This would include the male pronouns that identify their gender. So why is Mr. Brown so sure that’s a woman? He testified, under oath, in court, that he heard a school-teacher say so in class one day. Hmmm... We were unable to find anything in Leonardo’s writings to indicate even a passing interest in Mary Magdalene, let alone an obsession with her. He talked about Mary, the mother of Jesus a little bit, but that’s about all. So, The Bible, the Last Supper, and Leonardo Da Vinci’s notebook are all in perfect agreement on this one seemingly insignificant detail; that the apostle John, at some point, leaned toward Peter during Jesus' last meal. Everything fits. Based on simple deductions from all three sources, we can say with confidence that Leonardo’s rendering of The Last Supper follows the New Testament very closely, and the disciple on Christ’s immediate right is not Mary Magdalene, as The Da Vinci Code claims, but the apostle John, like the experts have said all along. According to Carlo Pedretti, the chair of Leonardo studies at UCLA, "The artist's reconstruction of the episode related in the Gospels, is precisely based on the scriptures". There's not much question that the unique arrangement in Leonardo’s painting came from a close reading of the biblical text. Da Vinci’s rendering is different from that of every artist we could find. Among them are Duccio (1308), Lorenzetti (1320), Andrea del Castagno (1447), Dieric Bouts (1464), Ghirlandaio (1480), Reubens (1630), and Poussin (1640). All had the apostle John sitting up straight next to Jesus, leaning against him, or resting his head on the table. Only Da Vinci has him leaning away from Christ. Following The Bible here was a smart move, because by having John leaning toward Peter, it opened up the space Leonardo needed to isolate, and accentuate Christ in his “pyramidal composition” scheme. The figures are grouped into five separate triangles. Four containing a block of three disciples each and a fifth pyramid for Jesus. Even the untrained eye can see how it defines the painting. Countless artists went on to use pyramidal composition. Some experts feel this was Leonardo’s greatest gift to western art. From this seemingly insignificant detail of John leaning back on Jesus, it became apparent that Da Vinci’s notebook held the key to the mystery. But there are a couple of strange things here. The first is that we read his notes a dozen times, but didn’t think much of them until noticing the apparent conflict with the Bible. The gospel didn’t mention John leaning away from Christ, just that he leaned back on him. They both mean the same thing but it doesn’t sink in right away. But why was such a minor detail included in the gospel record in the first place? Other than what we’re using it for now, it seems completely meaningless. One explanation is that the author was simply writing down what happened. Only someone with a permanent commitment to religious skepticism would insist this is something other than eyewitness testimony. Why would anyone fabricate such a detail? But it was something even more peculiar that ultimately got our attention. For John repeated this same frivolous tidbit again eight chapters later and for no apparent reason! In chapter 21, the final chapter of John’s gospel, we find Peter walking and talking with the resurrected Christ on the shore of the Sea of Tiberius:
There is even less reason to include this trivial point here than the first time. It comes at the end of the book and we already knew who “the disciple that Jesus loved” is. John had referred to himself that way about thirty times by then, so why is he repeating the “leaning at supper” thing? It was the unexplainable nature of this second passage that ultimate ly got our attention. If it adds nothing to the story the first time it appears, how do you account for it being used a second time? You can come to your own conclusion, but the possibility exists that such a meaningless detail was included by divine inspiration to undermine The Da Vinci Code claimthat the New Testament is “false testimony”. And what of the coincidence that it was John’s gospel that unlocks the mystery of whether it’s him, or Mary Magdalene, in the painting? - m.j. bakeland / p. bertolini |
copyright 2006-2007
No portion of this Web site may be reproduced in any form without the expressed written consent of the authors.
