Did da Vinci paint Mary Magdalene in The Last Supper?

Written by Darren Hewer

In The Da Vinci Code Brown treats the figure in the painting as being undoubtedly Mary Magdalene, but what evidence does he have to back that up? Take another look at The Last Supper in the Art of The Da Vinci Code gallery.

In the book Dan Brown writes:

Sophie examined the figure to Jesus’ immediate right … a wave of astonishment rose within her. 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!” Sophie exclaimed.

Teabing was laughing. “Surprise, surprise. Believe me, it’s no mistake. Leonardo was skilled at painting the difference between the sexes.” (Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code)

The person sitting on Jesus’ right (the figure to the left of him in the painting) does have some feminine-looking features and may appear feminine but there is more evidence that it is a man, not a woman.

Evidence that the figure is not a woman:

  • Da Vinci often drew androgynous looking men (men with feminine qualities); for example, see his painting of John the Baptist.
  • It was common convention at that time to paint John the disciple with feminine qualities
  • It makes sense to have John (called ?the beloved disciple? or ?the one that Jesus loved?) sitting to Jesus’ right.
  • The person to Jesus’ right seems to be wearing men’s style clothing
  • Surely when the picture was first painted, someone would have noticed it was a woman if indeed it was intended to be a woman. After all it is ?among the most famous paintings in the world?; it seems unlikely that this would just be coming to light now.
  • The painting is meant to capture the moment when Jesus tells His disciples He will be betrayed, so all the disciples should be there. But if that is a woman in the painting, then one of the disciples is missing. Remember that at the time of the last supper, Judas has not yet betrayed Jesus so all twelve disciples would have been present.
  • Even if da Vinci painted a woman sitting next to Jesus, that’s no reason to believe that da Vinci was accurate; he was painting over 1,400 years after the incident occurred

Sophie was pretty quick to identify the person in the painting as a woman, but what do you think? Looking at the painting is that a man or a woman? Do first impressions sometimes need correction? Is the evidence as obvious as Brown would have us believe?

EmailPrint

454 Responses to “Did da Vinci paint Mary Magdalene in The Last Supper?”

  • Aldo says:

    Salmon, I question that also, and agree with Elkay’s comment about Brown’s objective in suggesting Mary Magdalene was at The Last Supper was to sell more books by creating a controversy.

  • salmon says:

    How can one think beyond god’s Word.Even it was a great painter…..?

  • Elkay says:

    Kenny, it makes good sense that when Dan Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code, his motive was to make money by selling books. One good way to sell more books is to create controversy. Looking at the evidence presented in this article, I’d think that Brown’s objective in suggesting Mary Magdalene was at The Last Supper was exactly that and no more.

  • Kenny Sellers says:

    It’s painfully clear that the person sitting to the right of the itinerant preacher is indeed a woman.

  • Tom Tom says:

    Brian—
    I read your comments with interest, but also with confusion. You made several statements that don’t seem to fit; either with the Bible or with your own comments. Maybe you’d like to elaborate.

    Your comment on mono-cellular organisms seems to indicate you believe in evolution of one kind changing into another kind. Is that the case? If so, it seems to contradict your statements regarding Jesus, God, and the Bible.

    If the truth of the Bible is not important, how would one determine what spiritual truth is? By what would you gauge its authenticity?

    You make the statement “The Bible has suffered much via many levels of copying, translating, editing .” By what evidence do you make that claim? The thousands of full and partial manuscripts reveal that copying errors are negligible and of no consequence regarding doctrinal issues. You are correct that it takes many years of study of the Hebrew and Greek languages to fully understand the original biblical writings in every detail, but isn’t that exactly what the Hebrew and Greek scholars who have translated the Bible into English did? The modern translations are never from just one or a few translators. Dozens of learned men and women work diligently to be as accurate to the manuscripts as possible, so I think we have a fairly accurate translation. Whole volumes have been written by scholars to reveal the smallest meanings of Hebrew and Greek words.

    If what you’re stating about the lack of reliability or understanding of the Bible was true, how would you or anyone know spiritual truth?

    Would you be so kind as to give your sources for the idea that the folded head cloth of Jesus has some significant meaning to the Jews? How would you know this to be true if the Bible can’t be relied upon to accurately give the details?

    You close by offering a blessing from God concerning the understanding of the truth. Are you a believer in the God of the Bible? Are you saying that anyone can come to understand spiritual truths, regardless of their religion or lack thereof?

  • Brian Hanlon says:

    OK people, after spending way too much time reading all the Comments, I’ll add my own:
    What difference does it all make? Who cares?
    If you are so blind as to NOT see beyond the imagery / words of the various paintings & stories, I pity you!
    What a GREAT MIRACLE it is, when you think of the creation of a mono-cellular organism from raw surrounding ingredients, & to have that organism imbued with the ability to grow, reproduce & ADAPT TO DIFFERING ENVIRONMENTS! – Producing the enormous variety of beings which exist today, & have ever or WILL ever exist!
    I really appreciate a particular line in the movie “Dogma”, delivered by “Malachai – The Voice of God”: “Man took a great idea – Faith, & corrupted it with Religion!” – What a great Truth that is.
    Who cares about the “Literal” truth of The Bible? – It is the SPIRITUAL TRUTH WHICH MATTERS!
    The Bible has suffered much via many levels of copying, translating, editing etc. – it would take many years to learn sufficient of ancient languages before one could even read the original fragmented scrolls. Then one would have t develop an understanding of the mores of the times to start to understand the idiomatic meanings and relevance of the words used!!!
    A simple example:
    The cloth found by whoever entered the cave of storage of the Christ physical body post-crucifixion, WAS FOLDED! This is referred to quite subtly for the non-Jew, but is of high significance! – The folded / doubled cloth is symbolic of a statement that “I have not yet finished – I shall return!” – So much for understanding The Bible – Which “Christian” Church even mentions this, let alone teaches the symbolism? It is no wonder that there is so much controversy.
    For myself, I wish ALL people whatever part of TRUTH they can understand & accept at their stage in their path of life, to whatever level they can accept.
    May Your God Bless you & walk beside you on your path.

  • Tom Tom says:

    twmccy–
    Although you find my (and I would suppose all Christian’s) statements “ridiculous and insulting,” because of our love for those who are walking in blindness, we are compelled to reply in love.

    Based on your input, I would assume you are an evolutionist. If so, do you have factual, eye-witness accounts for evolution–one kind changing into another kind?

    Both the eye-witness accounts for much of what is contained in the Bible, and the extra-biblical eye-witness accounts of the same, confirm much of what we read in scripture. Your presuppositions which are derived from your “there’s is no God” world-view, will blind you to the truth of scripture whether you know it or not. That’s why I said you will only find the truth if you are really looking for it.

    Simply stating that you don’t believe in the eye-witness accounts of Jesus, the virgin birth, angelic appearances, etc., doesn’t mean those aren’t legitimate eye-witness accounts by those who wrote them down. Just whose eye-witness will you accept anyway? Remember that the Bible isn’t just one book but 66 books written by 40 different authors, yet each corroborating and complimenting each of the others. That in itself is exceptional eye-witness testimony.

    Oh, and by the way–on what basis do you call anything “ridiculous and insulting”? Where are you getting your sense of morality with an absolute moral’s giver?

  • twmccy says:

    To Tom:

    I find your statement “Whether you are open to the evidence presented will be determined by your desire to know the truth” both ridiculous and insulting.

    Just because some of us have higher standards of evidence on which to base our beliefs, does not make us any less desirous of knowing ‘the truth” – stop being so arrogant – Christians DO NOT have a patent on truth, or the search for it. (I can add in Muslims and Jews here too, just to be fair).

    I’m familiar with most of the Christian apologetic arguments regarding the validity of “eyewitness accounts” At best it is all “hearsay…..NOT factual evidence.

    Bet you think the earth was “created” 6000 years ago, in 7 days, by a omnipotent deity who then needed to ‘rest’ as a result of “it’s” strenuous efforts.

    Bet you believe in the Virgin Conception / Birth. An Angel appearing in a dream is certainly as good a source of truth as can be had, isn’t it?

    And who again was the “eye witness to that”?

    I know you and others won’t hesitate to reply, you can’t help yourself. I will leave you all with the last word….and laugh at the sheer gullibility of people…(I’m choosing a nicer word than I might)

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Hi twmccy, if you are looking for a video that captures the Gospel authors writing down their experiences with Jesus, you are right, there is no hard evidence like that. But based on the way that scholars determine the authenticity of any work from that ancient world there is substantial evidence of the authors and the events which they recorded.

    Many of that evidence has been shared here already but let’s just highlight a few of the pieces that give scholars confidence in the historical accuracy of the New Testament documents. We have a fragment of a copy of the Gospel of John that has been dated to 125 AD. That is within 50 years of the earliest date given for the writing of the John’s Gospel and within 25 years of the John’s death. That is a rare find indeed for documents from the 1st Century. Compare that to the Roman historian Suetonius who is a primary source for our knowledge of the lives and events of the first 12 Roman Caesars. His work “De Vita Caesarum” was written in 120 AD, 20 years prior to his death. The oldest fragments of any copies we have of this popular work are dated 950 AD, more than 800 years after it was written. Not only that, but we have writings of the Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus who had talked with disciples of John like Polycarp about the Apostle John and his writing of the Gospel. These are compelling testimonies for any scholar testing the historical accuracy of ancient documents.

    Certainly there are those who would question the authorship and accuracy of the Gospels, but if their unreasonable standards are also used for other ancient documents we would not be able to accept the writings of Plato, Julius Caesar, Aristotle, or any other author from history.

  • Tom Tom says:

    twmccy–
    You state, “but there is no hard evidence that any of the gospels, (whose real authors are unknown), are accurate representations (narratives), by people who actually witnessed the events.” If I may borrow your own words, “Simply put – not true.”

    The evidence for the validity of the gospels is exhaustive (if not exhausting). Simply Google “Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts”. Whether you are open to the evidence presented will be determined by your desire to know the truth. If your only objective is to discount the gospels, you will not see the forest for the trees.

  • twmccy says:

    TO Jamie,

    I find your comment of Nov 6th a bit disconcerting. You make the claim “The Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life were written by those who were eyewitnesses of the events of His life and death”. Simply put – not true…. You can make that statement as a claim of “faith”, but there is no hard evidence that any of the gospels, (whose real authors are unknown), are accurate representations (narratives), by people who actually witnessed the events. No more so than Matthew 27:52 which describes the zombie saints who “appeared to many”. – So much for that importance of “eye witnesses for corroboration don’t ya think?

  • Frank says:

    Here’s the deal. Mary and other women close to Jesus and the 12 were probably there to prepare the food and set the table. I’m sure the women of the day did that sort of thing. If Jesus and Mary had a thing, so what, he was a man and I am sure his temptations were those of a man. Not saying he surrendered. But, if there was a kiss, so what. I am sure he loved her. If you what to make it sexual that’s your business. Maybe it is Mary sitting beside Jesus and one guy was in the bathroom. Does it really matter to argue the right and wrong of the picture. Reminds me of a saying,”My gran-daddy was a baptist my daddy was a baptist and I’ll die a baptist.” Just enjoy being a Christian and share the Love Of God!!!

  • Tom Tom says:

    Ceno–
    The Bible IS the truth, and it says nothing about Mary being Jesus’ wife. Therefore, the truth HAS been told.

  • Ceno Moore says:

    I think that everybody has the right to agree or disagree but most pictures are showing 12 disciples around Jesus truth be told the bible does talk about Mary being his wife I didn’t really notice that it was a woman until I look closer. But also to in historical records tells a story about DaVinci painting a picture of Jesus and the 12 disciples but also that it was a self image of a guy and some criminals and it wasn’t the actual picture it’s self of Jesus and his fellow followers we all have been told different stories about Jesus Christ but I say into you all that we all will see his face when God and him return to save this world of the devils work so instead of us arguing about what color he is because she stats that you shouldn’t judge because his father is the judge help each other and also other people to kneel before him and ask for mercy.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Hi Bruce, did you get a chance to look at the painting of John the Baptist by daVinci? http://www.lairweb.org.nz/leonardo/john.html As Darren points out in this article, many other artists also depicted the Apostle John with features that could be described as ‘feminine’. Have a look at this collection http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html. It was the way artists tried to show his young age. So it is quite reasonable to expect that daVinci would have also used this style in his painting of the last supper.

    Ultimately, the imagination of artists separated by hundreds of years carries little weight when stacked up against the testimony of the eyewitnesses that are recorded for us in the Bible. DaVinci could have painted a dancing bear on the table in front of Jesus but that wouldn’t mean that is an accurate depiction of what happened in the Upper Room.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Hi Steve, One of the reasons that the Gospel of Philip was not included in the New Testament is because it was not written by a eyewitness of the events of Jesus’ life. The earliest anyone dates this document is 150 AD while most acknowledge that it was more likely written in the 3rd century or as late as 350 AD. The Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life were written by those who were eyewitnesses of the events of His life and death. So when a document comes along that was written long after all of the eyewitnesses had died, and then makes claims that are counter to the eyewitness accounts, it is not likely that anyone concerned with truth will take the document as authoritative.

    Which would you say is more trustworthy evidence, testimony by those who had seen the events of Jesus life, or someone separated from those events by at least 120 years?

  • DENIS MCCOOL says:

    WOW, I sure opened up a can of worms when I submitted this comment. Keep on posting guys, it makes good reading material.

  • Steve Craig says:

    Well Jamie, it’s been a little while. I read your last contribution and found it was quite interesting. You highlight the point I have been trying to make about the compilation of the New Testament. It was and is selective. They ignored the Gospels of Philip and yet include the crazed rantings of John the Evangelist to wit – Revelations.
    Now back to the point. The woman at the last supper. Whatever spin you try to put on it, it’s a woman. Probably Mary Magdelene based on the various accounts of her involvement with Jesus. Look at it. Try putting faith to one side for a minute and try logic. This site is called The Power to Change. Unlikely with such entrenched viewpoints around.

  • Bruce says:

    Do you know that DaVinci was hired by the Pope to paint the Last Supper? The Pope would have examined his painting very closely and if the Pope did not approve it then it would be destroyed. Also, in those days the Floritein painters painted realism in other words, they were very strongly into painting accuracy and accuracy is what they painted. It looks like a woman because he purposely painted a woman. It’s that simple. There in no argument here. The facts speak for itself. I own an expensive replica of his painting and I can easily see that it is a woman to the right if Jesus. No argument about it.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Well Steve, you certainly are welcome to disagree with the historical accuracy of the Bible but I think you will have a hard time producing any evidence of that. Just as you will have a hard time producing any evidence of an intimate kiss between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The only documents that hint at such a relationship are recognized as heretical documents by the Early Church. Those accounts were written in later centuries and were used by those who were introducing new ideas into the Christian doctrines. If you look at the biblical references to Mary Magdalene you see that she was set free from 7 demons by Jesus, that she accompanied Jesus as His disciples through his ministry on Earth, and that she was present at His crucifixion, burial and resurrection, being one of the first to whom Jesus revealed Himself. There is no indication that she was at the Last Supper from the Gospel accounts: Matthew wrote that Jesus was with the Twelve (26:20), Mark also wrote that Jesus was with the Twelve (Mark 14:17), Luke records that Jesus was with the Apostles (Luke 22:14) – a unique designation for those He appointed as the Twelve (Luke 6:13-16). All of those accounts indicate that it was only the 12 Apostles who were with Jesus. Now if da Vinci was interested in recapturing the moment in his painting, why would he remove one of the 12 Apostles and insert Mary Magdalene? So I think the vehemence against the idea of it being Mary comes from two places: 1) the eyewitness accounts of the evening limit those present to just Jesus and the 12 Apostles; 2) those who claim it is Mary then also suggest that Mary Jesus were married, had children, and that through that child special blessings will come. All of which contradicts the testimony of the biblical authors, and all historical evidence that we have available.

    So I guess the question should be posed of those who vehemently persist that indeed Mary was present: Why do you ignore the evidence and insist that biblical testimony is a ‘cover-up’?

  • Steve Craig says:

    Hi Jamie. As far as the historical accuracy of the bible is concerned, we will have to agree to differ. I think the issue is why the ‘church’ is so veimently opposed to the idea that there was a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdelene. There are a number of observations in the gospels about her being with Jesus and there is even mention of a rather intimate kiss between them. I’d say there is more likely hood of her being at the Last Supper and that rather super smart chap Leonardo De Vinci seems to think so too.

  • bret says:

    I have an unusual portrait of Mary Magdalene sitting to Jesus left with her head on his shoulder with Judas across the table with a a bag of gold coins in his hand

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Actually Steve, there is great certainty that with all of the copies that are available today scholars are certain that the text we are using for translations are 99% recreations of the original manuscripts. That is not because all of the copies that we have today are exactly the same, but with all the variations that there are in the copies experts are able to compare and identify which are the most reliable. We actually have more copies and fragments of biblical texts today then was available to the translators in the 14th century and that helps with clarifications of the accuracy of the text. You will notice that the King James Version has some differences from more modern translations; that is the result of those new discoveries of manuscripts, fragments, lectionaries, etc that have helped to get a better view of the originals. And even in those variations there are no major doctrinal differences.

    So when you go to the Bible, you can have great confidence that what you are reading is what the Apostles wrote in the 1st century, especially if you are able to read Koine Greek.

  • Steve Craig says:

    Hi Jamie. I do understand that the collection of scriptures that became the New Testament, were written within 150 years of the death of Jesus Christ. I doubt very much that those writings are what you and I would recognise as the New Testament today. Scholars in the 14 century and later translated them from the original classic Greek or Latin to start to get where we are today. Next time you open your bible, have a look which version you’ve got. I bet it won’t be earlier than 14th century.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    But I assume, Denis, that you are not saying that once the Earth was flat and then became a globe, rather it was our understanding of the facts that changed. The shape of the Earth has not changed, it’s globe shape was a fact even though many people thought that it was flat. So the facts don’t change but our understanding of them can change.

    Looking at the painting of The Last Supper is there any evidence that Da Vinci painted an accurate portrayal of the people at that event? Is it wise to use a 14 century painting to establish a fact for an event that happened in the 1st century, or would it be better to use eye witness accounts to that event recorded in the 1st century?

  • Denis McCool says:

    for JAMIE, wow, it was also a fact , back in the day, that the Earth was flat.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Thanks for your contributions to the conversation Steve. I am not sure where you got the information that the Bible was compiled in the 14th century but that is not accurate. First of all, there is little disagreement that the documents that make up the New Testament in the Bible were completed by 95-100 AD (at the latest). There is plenty of evidence that these documents were widely circulated and accepted by Early Christians soon after their completion. Over the first few centuries the documents that were seen as authoritative continued to be based on local congregations and the sharing of those collections with others. The first recorded list of the 27 documents that now make up the New Testament was recorded in an Easter Letter by Athanasius in 367 AD. He refers to these documents and states that they are the only recognized writings that should be read in a worship service. The first church council that recognized this list of inspired writings was the Synod of Hippo 393 AD. No document survived from this Council but the decision was referred to in documents from the Synod in Carthage in 397 AD. So there is a long history of the Canon used by most Christians today reaching back much further than the 14th Century.

  • Steve Craig says:

    Quite right Dennis but some people base their lives and their futures on these so called facts. When the bible was first cobbled together they did indeed think the world was flat and the creationists still think we are the centre of the universe. My point is that it is as likely to be Mary Magdelene at the table as not.
    What we know tomorrow will have little or no impact on what some choose to believe and with no fact or evidence at all.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Hi Denis, that is a provocative statement about how new information changes the way we view things as fact. Are you suggesting that there is nothing that we can know for sure? Do you think facts actually change or is it our understanding of facts that changes?

  • Denis McCool says:

    hat is fact and what is fiction.
    Who has the true facts?
    The facts according to one person is fiction according to another.
    Every day new discoveries are made that turns fact into fiction and fiction into facts. So who’s to believe what anymore.
    There is a fantastic quote that was made in the movie MEN IN BLACK that I truly love ”
    “1500 years ago everybody knew the earth was the center of the universe… 500 years ago everybody knew the world was flat… 15 minutes ago you knew that people were alone on this planet, Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow”

  • Steve Craig says:

    My first observation of the previous comments is that there were 12 Apostles and any number of disciples both men and women.
    As for some of your other commenters, you really do need to look at your facts. Some say that Da Vinci didn’t make the painting until 1400 years after the event. Well the first versions of the bible weren’t put together until the same period and the King James Version wasn’t until 17th century. It is just as likely that the original compilers in the 14th and 15th centuries were selective as to what went into the New Testament and what didn’t to suit the beliefs at the time. I suggest Da Vinci was much better informed than some of you. Take a hard look at all the facts and not just the ones which fuel the delusion.

  • Clint says:

    The painting of John was made after the Last Supper right? What tells us for sure that both are not really paintings of Mary? Maybe the claim they were paintings of John is nothing more than a ruse to get away with painting something he believed in.

    They are both clearly painted to have feminine features and yet at the same time clearly painted to obscure any proof they are male or female. It’s just as possible Leonardo made John one of his final paintings as a final clue to his last supper as it is that both are really of John.

  • Aldo says:

    RIDICULOUS!!! How can anyone even begin to compare some fictitious writing with the Word of God?

  • Rev Gabriel Magundwane says:

    We don’t have problem with the Last Supper as in the Bible. We have problem with the last supper as on Da Vinci’s painting. Did Da Vinci put a man or a woman?
    We can not use the bible to defend a painting.
    Dan Brown is simply telling the church how it’s ignorantly observing pagan and cultic images.
    Why don’t we simply come with a new Last Supper picture and do away with Da Vinci?

  • shine swarupi says:

    if Mary was a prostitute..later purified her sins..so during the last supper how can she allow some one to c her in a wrong way…just look at that pic ..Mary on left …so I guess it was on right with Jesus

  • Tom Tom says:

    Considering that this is NOT a factual depiction of the Last Supper, does it really matter who is painted to the right of Jesus? The fact is, we can only ASSUME that the person in the MIDDLE is Jesus!

  • In that case,my question is who really that person at the right side of Jesus?

  • Tom Tom says:

    Eddie–
    What you are looking at is Da Vinci’s imagination of what the Last Supper might have looked like. He painted it 1400 years after the event and therefore had only the details described in the Bible. Even there he was not accurate as it is known that people did not sit on chairs at tables but lay on the floor around tables to eat. The Bible describes it as “reclining” to eat.

  • Eddie says:

    The perso. To Jesus right is a woman look at the face, it looks like make up on the face does any one else face got red cheeks

  • Aldo says:

    My guess is that it was the original twelve disciples, which Mary Magdalene was not part of.

  • Josh Houser says:

    It is Mary because this was the defining moment of
    The holly grale. What better then it to be Jesus’ blood
    Line. Very simple to figure out . :-)

  • Alexander Moon says:

    How can anyone question the figure to Jesus’ right is not female? The features are feminine, and she wears a necklace that the other Apostles do not have. No doubt the knife belongs to Peter, a fisherman, who would also use a knife to protect Christ in the Garden.

  • Elkay says:

    There really is not enough evidence for Dan Brown to make that claim and by so doing, he undercut the plausibility of his own theory. Remember, Brown has to sell books to make money and the more outrageous his material, the more likely more books will be sold.

  • jordan says:

    It is john causne john was on jesus’ right hand and he leaned on his right breast

  • Shelley says:

    Thank you Nico for your comment and I also believe that it is a man next to the right of Jesus at the Last Supper before He went to the cross.

  • Nico says:

    I love life on God’s terms, not life’s terms, that said, people can be fooled,& Leonardo da Vinci was dang good at it.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Have a look at Da Vinci’s painting again http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Leonardo_da_Vinci_(1452-1519)_-_The_Last_Supper_(1495-1498).jpg and compare it to Rembrandt’s two sketches http://www.kijiji.ca/v-view-details.html?adId=1061469032 (yours) http://rembrandt.louvre.fr/en/html/r02.html (the red sketch) It may not be that Rembrandt was making an exact copy but there are a lot of similar poses. I suppose that perhaps they both had access to an even earlier picture, but I think the most likely explanation is that Rembrandt used Da Vinci’s painting as the model for his.

    I am not sure what you are referring to when you ask about an erased character.

  • DENIS MCCOOL says:

    no, I don’t think he was copying da vinci, Rambrandt was doing illustrations for the Bible story .
    From what I understood from this book , witch is a book about Rambrandt, and this last section of the book was showing the illustrations that he did for the bible story.
    When did that figure get erased from that painting anyway ?
    Was it there or erased when Rambrandt did his illustrations ?
    My point is that If that figure was not in Da Vinci’s painting during the Rambrandt days, then How could he have copied it from da vinci’s ?

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    It is different from the one that I posted. Here is another site where it is located http://www.garyschwartzarthistorian.nl/ul/cms/fck-uploaded/images/Rembrandt%20core%20drawings/Ben0445TheLastUpperAfterLeonardo1635BerlinW.jpg So you don’t think that this was a copy of Da Vinci’s painting?

  • DENIS MCCOOL says:

    I just deleted the last photo in that set of 10 and replaced it with a better quality photo of that sketch , you can see it at:
    http://www.kijiji.ca/v-view-details.html?adId=1061469032

  • DENIS MCCOOL says:

    not knitting , needle point and seems to be not interested in the task that jesus is doing compared to all the other figures in the sketch.

  • DENIS MCCOOL says:

    The Rembrandt illustration sketch is totally different,I wish there was a way I could post a photo here, best I can do is post the website of my books for sale where in this link you can see the 6th photo of the illustration by rambrandt in the book. Madeleine is sitting beside jesus doing what looks like knitting.
    my website book is here: http://www.kijiji.ca/v-view-details.html?adId=1061469032

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Hi Denis, thanks for pointing that out. Was it this picture http://rembrandt.louvre.fr/en/html/r02.html ? Do you see any similarities between what Rembrandt drew and what Da Vinci painted? I wonder if Rembrandt had seen Da Vinci’s painting before he drew his? I guess that may be a possibility since Da Vinci was completed by 1497 and Rembrandt’s would have been done around 1635.

    Even if Rembrandt did not copy Da Vinci’s painting do you think his painting gives any more validity to the idea that is presented in “The Da Vinci Code” that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene?

  • DENIS MCCOOL says:

    I found a 1955 French book called “Rembrandt et L’Évangile selon saint luc”
    in the book page 98-99 there is a drawing signed by Rembrandt of the last super and there is a lady sitting beside jesus at the table.
    So not only Da Vinci did it , but so did REMBRANDT.

Leave a Reply

Start a Conversation

Media

Image for Love can be dangerousLove can be dangerous

Love can be dangerous. When you aim high and love lets you down, the fall is far.

>Watch
Image for Do you crave destiny? (Part 1)Do you crave destiny? (Part 1)

You were not made for apathy; you were made for hope.

>Watch

Latest Comments

  • Aldo said: Salmon, I question that also, and agree with Elkay's...
  • salmon said: How can one think beyond god's Word.Even it was...
  • Jamie said: Hi Flora, what kind of help are you looking for?...