Point of View in The Da Vinci Code A Stylistic Analysis of The Da Vinci Code part 2
Mary? Quite contrary
Point of View in The Da Vinci Code A Stylistic Analysis of The Da Vinci Code part 5
Brown continues to misuse da Vinci in connection with his thesis that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married and produced a “royal bloodline,” which is the true Holy Grail. One of Brown’s characters, a “historian” named Leigh Teabing, alleges that da Vinci inserted Mary Magdalene into his painting The Last Supper (243–44) and signified the Grail bloodline by separating Christ and Mary with a V-shaped space, which represents the Grail as a womb.
Not surprisingly, all of Brown’s claims about The Last Supper are unsupported by the consensus of art historians. The “woman” Brown finds is all but unanimously identified by da Vinci experts as a youthful apostle John. The V-shaped space between the two figures actually expresses the concept of “dynamic masses” found in Renaissance art: da Vinci purposely used the space to separate the two groups of figures in the painting for artistic balance. Finally, Langdon claims that Peter is depicted “leaning menacingly toward Mary Magdalene and slicing his bladelike hand across her neck” in a threatening manner. Professional art historians, however, say Peter is leaning forward in dismay after hearing Christ announce His imminent betrayal. They also describe the “slicing” hand as actually “forming a bridge between the heads of St. John and Judas,” thus underlying “the contrast between innocence and villainy.” Brown’s analysis of this painting bears little resemblance to that of scholars educated in the artistic techniques of da Vinci and other Renaissance painters.
Even more questionable are the claims Brown puts into his historian’s mouth about customs and documents of the New Testament era, supposedly pointing to Mary’s marriage to Jesus. He correctly notes that the common identification of Mary as a prostitute is false; the New Testament actually depicts her as a wealthy supporter of Jesus’ ministry. Brown, however, uncritically following the theories found in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, claims that Jesus must have been married because in the Jewish world, “social decorum…virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried” (245). Not only is this an argument from silence, it is patently false. The Jewish atmosphere of Jesus’ day clearly had a tradition of celibacy for those who devoted their lives to God, as exemplified by the unmarried prophets Jeremiah and Elijah and as expressed by New Testament-era groups such as the Essenes and figures such as John the Baptist and Banus the prophet (Josephus, Life 2.11). Celibacy and singleness were indeed exceptional, but contrary to
Analysis of The Da Vinci Code to be continued… (part 6).
 |
| Point of View in The Da Vinci Code A Stylistic Analysis of The Da Vinci Code part 5 |
Point of View in The Da Vinci Code A Stylistic Analysis of The Da Vinci Code part 5
- parafrasa syair burung nuri
- tentukan maksud dan nilai yang terkandung dari syair burung nuri
- kata yang bersifat arkais dan maknanya
- kata yang bersifat arkais beserta maknanya
- tentukan maksud dan nilai yang terkandung dari “syair burung nuri” tersebut.
- kata yang bersifat arkais
- kata bersifat arkais
- tentukan kata yang bersifat arkais
- tentukan kata yang bersifat arkais dan carilah makna kata tersebut
- tentukan maksud dan nilai yang terkandung dalam syair burung nuri tersebut
- tentukan maksud dan nilai yg terkandung dari syair burung nuri
- tentukan maksud dan nilai yang terkandung dari syair burung nuri tersebut
- jual point panjat tebing
- jebidal.com
- tentukan kata yang bersifat arkais dan makna kata tersebut
0 komentar:
Post a Comment