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.
I'll call Harvard and have them disband the entire English Literature department.
Historians were also both pleased and horrified by the recent unearthing of a rendition of the Last Supper by Michaelangelo. While the portion sizes are closer to what is believed to be accurate, the painting also features such embellishments as a kangaroo, twenty eight disciples, and three Christs.
However the card attached to the painting is actually labeled "The Penultimate Supper", and historians must admit there are no records of how many people attended that gathering.
The enemies of Democracy are
...I wanted to give the impression of a real last supper. You know, not just any old last supper. Not like a last meal or a final snack. But you know, I wanted to give the impression of a real mother of a blow-out, you know?
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
The last supper is thought to have been a Passover Sedar. This would mean, if possible, there would have been many kinds of foods, but not in large quantities.
Everyone has blinders (or sets of presuppositions) - to assume otherwise is ignoring reality. If I begin a project in web design, I have a certain set of presuppositions about how things go together - this on the basis of general consensus. If I begin a project involving history, I begin with a certain set of presuppositions (If I set out to do a project on what the food was at the Last Supper, I would generally have to have as a presupposition that the meal happened).
Being scholarly does not mean rejecting presupposition but rather working towards a greater understanding of a given topic while understanding the presuppositions upon which my research is based.
And if we really want to get down to it, the whole reason we have "scholarly" pursuits is because of the medieval "scholastics" who were almost uniformly religious in some respect.
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.