Slashdot Mirror
Supersizing the "Last Supper"
gandhi_2 writes "A pair of sibling scholars compared 52 artists' renditions of 'The Last Supper', and found that the size of the meal painted had grown through the years. Over the last millennium they found that entrees had increased by 70%, bread by 23%, and plate size by 65.6%. Their findings were published in the International Journal of Obesity. From the article: 'The apostles depicted during the Middle Ages appear to be the ascetics they are said to have been. But by 1498, when Leonardo da Vinci completed his masterpiece, the party was more lavishly fed. Almost a century later, the Mannerist painter Jacobo Tintoretto piled the food on the apostles' plates still higher.'"
That article was worthless. It's about a series of paintings, and yet the only picture is of some athlete in the side column.
If this is the current standard of quality in newspapers, no wonder they're a dying breed.
tl;dr: relevant pics or gtfo!
are you implying he is not a specialist in a particular branch of study? Or are you just a dick.
However there ARE legitimate scholars who study the bible as a work of literature and history. Translations, interpretations, writing styles, geography, politics.
I see no reason to group the same people who paint Lev 18:22 on placards in the same group who simply treat the bible like Shakespeare's first folio.
It also depicts them as a bunch of white guys.
No, I’m not suggesting that Jesus was black. But he probably wasn’t white.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I see no reason to deny at least a subgroup of religiously motivated biblical scholars the "scholar" status. Anyone who doubts that should find a well-trained catholic theologian to discuss with. First, they do a lot of serious literary/language/history study, second, even within the realms of dogma, where you might question their axioms (as I do), they usually are well-trained in logic and able to deliver a hell of an argument. Not every religious scholar is a frothing at the mouth evangelical - that is pretty much an American phenomenon.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
This would have been their idea of a feast. The fact that an Italian interpretation 1500 years later doesn't "get it" is not surprising. The fact that a scholar of any sort 2000 years later fixates on it is somewhat absurd.
Substitute "last supper" with "thanksgiving" and you will have something resembling a proper cultural context. Then contemplate your comparisons.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
But the Last Supper was on Thursday.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I wouldn't say that the ascetic nature of the Cathars was the main factor for their prosecution - sure, the dualistic nature of their creed, damning everything material, which led to their rather ascetic lifestyle was a factor, but their excommunication and prosecution was mostly founded in the fact that they established the first serious counter-church. They called themselves the "True Christians" after all. The prime motivation was therefore political rather than dogmatic, at least in my opinion. The church still allowed asceticism - as long as it did not pose a political threat.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.