was there any particular reason? was it so they could all be in the picture? I would thing that they could all talk to eachouther better if they were around the table with Jesus at the head of the table.
2007-01-31 00:21:14 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Mary Magdolon Jesus wife????? huh??? now im really confused?????
2007-01-31 00:39:46 · update #1
It is a painting.
The artist did not want to paint the backs of heads.
It also shows them as if they were sitting at a table, that did not happen at the last supper.
It was customary for them to stretch out on the floor and the table was quite low.
They essentially sat on the floor with their legs stretched out behind them in a semi-reclining position.
Your suggestion is to make the 1st century like the 21st century.
grace2u
2007-01-31 00:35:33 · answer #1 · answered by Theophilus 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They didn't sit on the same side of the table. The best way to imagine the last supper is this: A dimly lit room, a few candles and torches light the area. The house they stay in is probably either a relatives house or a inn opened up for the Passover festival. The house sat in the Essene quarter of the Holy City, where Jesus probably had allies who would protect him (thus the secretive language of how they get to this house: Go to the city and meet a man carrying a water jar and ask him for the house where the teacher has a room.). There in the dark room they would have reclined at a large table or tables and used their hands to take the Passover Seder dinner: three unleavened cakes, parsley and a bowl of salt water, horse-radish, nuts and apples, possibly a roasted lamb, a roasted egg and wine. They would eat the supper in solemn and pray the prayer of the Passover celebration until Jesus begins to speak of his demise, the New Covenant and his handing over to the Pharisee and Romans.
2016-05-23 22:30:46 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Assuming your are referring to the DaVinci painting, which is just that - a painting. Make 1400 years after the actual dinner, the disciples are positioned on the one side of the table for dramatic effect - not because that is what really happened.
The painting is located at the end of a large dining hall, and designed so that if you stand at the opposite end of the room, the painting appear to be a continuation of the room. The table matches the ones that were used in the hall at the time the painting was made (early 1500s). Same with the table cloth, and the pattern on the dishes. It was designed to make it look like the Last Supper was happening right there in that room in the 1500s.
In the Hebrew culture at the time of Christ, dining tables were unknown. Guest normally reclined on couches, or sat on the floor like in a Chinese restaurant. They ate with the plate on their lap - no table. There would have been low table holding the food, but people would not have sat at the table or put their plates on it.
Divinci made many other changes to make the painting more dramatic. For instance, it is daylight through the windows of the room, but the actual Last Supper happened at night. The food on the table is leavened bread and fish. The actual Last Supper was a Passover meal of unleavened bread and roast lamb. There is no cup in front of Jesus. The hair and clothing styles are wrong for Jesus' time, but right for renaissance times.
So the answer is - its a painting, and putting them all on one side was more dramatic then having half of them showing their backsides and the other half covered up by the backsides.
2007-01-31 00:47:50 · answer #3 · answered by dewcoons 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The artist painted the picture a few hundred years after the fact, and he obviously wasn't there, so he decided to try to put all the faces on the painting, and that's the only way he could figure to do it. In fact, at that time in Israel's history, they wouldn't have even had chairs, they would have been laying around on pillows on the floor eating off of a low table. The painting also shows a lot of long hair, and Jewish men of that time didn't wear their hair long. It's just an artists rendering of what he thought it might have been like.
2007-01-31 00:33:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Same reason that they all sit on the same side of the table in the movies, so they can get a picture. So why are the arches in the room out of the crusader historical period of time. That ardchitecture didn't come for a 1000 years after the upper room.
2007-01-31 00:30:20 · answer #5 · answered by oldguy63 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The other side of the table was clear so the invisible ghostly serving women, could serve them hand and foot, unhindered. Have you heard the saying, Women should be seen, and not heard? To religion, Woman is neither heard, or seen. They are like invisible ghosts. The Least. The servant of all.
2007-01-31 01:01:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They sat around the table, but at one point they were asked to gather on one side so someone could take a picture.
2007-01-31 01:00:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There was no mention of how they were seated at the table. The picture was made in that way to show their faces. Have a great day.
Eds
2007-01-31 00:26:05 · answer #8 · answered by Eds 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Watch Mel Brook's "History of the World Part 1". It shows why,lol
2007-01-31 00:25:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is's just Leonardo way of organising the characters. Actually they would have dinner half lying on the floor, it's the Oriental position to eat.
2007-01-31 00:35:29 · answer #10 · answered by Mexie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋