Arcadia Discussion Zone

This sounds a good topic to discuss so lets have a bash. There seems to be a theory that the figure in LDV's last supper who looks remarkably like a woman is an effeminate John. What I want to know is, who first came up with this theory, where did it originate, where can i find references in the bible, gnostic texts or any other literature thats proves John was effeminate?
Can someone point me to Leonardo's notes which explain he was definately painting an effiminate John?
I've been told that I suffer from of lack of education concerning this subject so C'mon guys educate me and show me all the proof I need to be converted to the sexy John theory.
I won't accept hearsay or any notion coming from any dude residing in the Vatican throwing darts at pictures of women.

the effeminate John came from a statement by Irenaeus in the 2nd century. Irenaeus claimed that he heard from Polycarp, when he (Irenaeus) was a young child that John the son of Zebedee had authored the 4th gospel. The 4th gospel itself claims to have been authored by "the beloved disciple" (John 21:24). This is where the legend of an effeminate John begins. It certainly didn't come from scripture, as Jesus calls John and his brother James, "Sons of Thunder" (Mark 3:17).

If there is no reference in any scripture pertaining to the fact that John was effeminate then surely such a notion has been 'made up', fictional, untruth or what ever you want to call it.
I can see why someone made it up now, because there is 'the beloved disciple' then certain factions wanted to ensure that all the diciples remained purely male.
I think i'm beginning to become educated on this matter.

Dave, you're missing the forest for the trees - forget John/MM for a moment. Look at the RENAISSANCE. It is one long, blatant homoerotic art show on display. It is a recapturing of Classical Roman and Greek themes, which also were blatantly homoerotic. Young post-pubescent, but pre-adult males were almost ALWAYS presented as "pretty" in paintings and sculptures - haven't you ever wondered about all the curls and nudity? Haven't you ever wondered about all those famous masters being gay (or at least bi-sexual)? Did you think it was just a coincidence? No. It was a lifestyle. The Renaissance was a revolutionary period - taboos were explored. Taboos were celebrated. Did it cause trouble with the Church? You bet. Did that stop it? Not even close - DURING THAT PERIOD IN THOSE PLACES. Why do you think there was so much non-religious art produced, involving naked gods and goddesses - because they could paint NAKED PEOPLE that way more readily, as well as dipping into the wild vices of the earlier deities, known for their "tolerances" and "experimentation." Why do I think LDV painted John that way? Probably because that was how he liked to show a desirable young man, just like all the other artists we have looked at from that time and place.

Is that such a mystery?

There is no place in scripture where John would be considered effeminate. As a matter of fact he wanted to call down fire to consume a group of Samaritans who had pissed him off. Only if you equate him with "The Disciple Jesus Loved" (only mentioned in the 4th gospel) could he be considered effeminate. Most bible scholars today do not consider him, either the author of that text or the beloved disciple.

Forget renaissance for a minute, i'm asking where the idea of a effeminate John came from.

There is also no place in scripture where MM is present at the Last Supper or was known as one of "The Twelve Apostles".
There is quite difference between an Renaissance artist painting a young man in the style which is contemporary to the period, and re-writing the known and accepted theme of the artists subject matter ( especially regarding religious messages ).
Imagine this; I am an artist who has been asked by the Queen to paint Prince William and Kate Middleton on their wedding day.
Which will be more acceptable ? Painting Prince William with rosy cheeks and having Kate Middleton showing a bit of cleavage.
OR
Painting Kate getting married to Darth Vader ?
Do you get my point? An artist is telling a story, and painting it for his contemporary audience. It is one thing using artistic licence to add creativity and individuality, but to change the story to something completely different just might not go down too well with the patron paying the bills ( or the paintings other viewers for that matter ).
As Caelum states above, this isn't about who first painted John as being effeminate, but what the re-accuring themes and statements being made by artists during the Renaissance were.
Regards
Nic
Edited to add :-

Dave, I think Caelum has answered that question above. The answer is the idea of painting all the other effeminate young men portrayed during this period. You have to remember fashion and taste changes ( just look at the 1980's )

Understanding what both you and Caelum are saying Nic, but I think you are missing the point of what Dave is asking on this thread. The effeminate John came directly from Irenaeus's statement.

Yes, why talk about the Renaissance when discussing a Renaissance painting right? The question isn't why did LDV and other artists paint the figure in an "effeminate" way as you put it, but rather why were they portraying them as a boy at all. These artists (for the most part) were portraying the description from John, as it is the only gospel that mentions the location and posture of the beloved disciple. That begs the question who said he was young?

This begs another question, who says he was the beloved disciple? As for the Renaissance, the scripture paints a picture of the last supper with the beloved disciple laying is head on Jesus breast, what kind of a situation is that? This is of course the moment many renaissance painters tried to capture, but for some reason da Vinci did not.

We're not discussing a renaissance painting at all. We are discussing the origins of the effeminate John. What paintings have to do with the origin of such a notion I do not know. Forget about paintings altogether, put them out of your mind and lets discuss the true origin of this subject guys.

Funny thing is, you can often look at an artist depiction of John, when in the scene with MM and the artists seems to have no problem depicting him as young but definitely male figure. The same artist will then depict John in the last supper looking very ambiguous as to his gender and more often than not look more towards the female side.

"Jesus and Mary Magdalene". If you mention to a Mormon - Latter-Day Saint - that

Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, he might reply to you, "So?..." or perhaps he`d say, "And...?"

That union would no way shake up the religious foundation of the LDS church.

I don't think that it was only Renaissance artists that painted the feminine John


Notre Dame Cathedral Paris on the wood panel of Last Supper
I believe it is on the Roseline

copyright me
Yes the Holy Grail is on the table and Jesus and John(Mary Magdalene) are holding hands are over it

this is the day in court where a King and a Queen sat at the same dinner table

In line with the grail below is a red door with a ornate tree like motif

I agree where did John ...end up in Scripture being described with no beard and holding hands with Jesus
If you look at the other apostles no one is holding hands or resting their head on another's bosom

Just one....no where does it say John got drunk that night either in the gospels

yes where does this myth come from?
oh one more thing John doesn't have a Halo either?

The Florentine School and the Portrayal of Male Youth
http://arthistory.about.com/od/renaissanceart/a/altheyoungdudes.htm

Paddy

For my eyes Paddy, the disputed figure in the LS is, a without a doubt, a female.

Everything about this figure is female - it has no male characteristics whatsoever.

If I thought the disputed figure looked like an effeminate young boy, I would agree with the explanation found in your link.

Dave,
It was a style used.
Look at LDV's John the Baptist paintings, the Mona Lisa itself and the Madonna of the Rocks and look at the angel. Then look at Verocchio's depiction of Tobias and the angel and also Botticini's version. OK - so angels may be construed as either sex, but Tobias was a man but is (IMHO) shown in a 'youthful' way - ie slightly effeminate.
You may see common 'models' appear to have been used in LDV's work - and I would guess in works by other artists common models would have been used as well. I thought that I had read elsewhere that in the Renaissance most of the models were men anyway - I can't recall the exact place - but the following link echos that 'theme'.
http://renresearch.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... -breasts2/

Seems to me you have the potential to get into a world of trouble

And for G_d's sake stay out of Bangkok!

....and this has what to do with this subject???
Poor at the very best.

Thanks for the link but I'm not really asking about paintings for the minute, i'm asking where the origins of John been portrayed as affeminate actually came from, who first suggested it, why the theme has continued and if there is any proof anywhere in scripture that backed the theory up.
So far I seem to be getting the message that the theory has absolutely no foundation and if that is the case then I just don't see how anyone on here can form any solid argument for it.

If that were the case then why didn't LDV paint everyone like that in the LS?
There has to be a specific reason why Leonardo painted either an effeminate John or the Magdalene in the LS which is obviously not written in scripture. If the reason is because there was doubt to who had actually written the 4th Gospel and was the 'beloved diciple' then both arguments are equally as plausible.
If Leonardo wanted to keep the status quo and not stir up trouble then he would have painted John with a beard IMHO and gone about his business. The fact that he left a foul taste in observers mouth's suggests to me he knew exactly what he was doing and the fact that the figure in question has absolutely no male features leads me to conclude that Leonardo believed the author of the 4th Gospel was indeed the Magdalene.

Dave,
I thought that article linked the two? They talk about the male/female, female/male in art in the Renaissance:
'...There are plenty of images of feminine-looking young men in the Renaissance that show the interest in male androgyny too – many of Leonardo da Vinci’s male figures look feminine (hence the non-controversy about John the Evangelist “really” being Mary Magdalen that Dan Brown talked about in the Da Vinci code).....'

I can show you you two or three images where 'young' male characters look feminine from the period. What is the artist then trying to say about the characters depicted? Or was it just a style used to reinforce the idea of youth?

I'm not sure that a link exists that you're looking for - ie the artist is using effeminacy to portray youth. so to look for something that says John actually was effeminate is not the point. IMHO the implication isn't that they are trying to portray John as effeminate, just to reinforce his youthfulness.

I would say that if I can show say a dozen pictures in the period, where young men are portrayed as effeminate to emphasise their youthfulness, then to ignore that LDV may have done that with John, is just ignoring a 'style' that was prevalent at the time.

Can you point me to scripture where is states that John is young?

If it is not written in scripture that John was niether effeminate or young then where did this bizarre notion come from?
In fact why did Leonardo pick on John and not on any of the other diciples for his young subject?
The only possible reason for anyone to assume that John was effeminate was because of the mention of a beloved diciple in the 4th Gospel.
This whole rendition has come about because someone assumed that the author of the 4th Gospel had to be male and for no other reason, forget what was popular at the time, that argument has absolutely no foundation and cannot be the basis of an argument IMHO.
The church rather than admit that the author of the 4th gospel could in fact be a female has scraped the barrel so deeply that they have actually suggested in the cross fire that their good lord was in fact homosexual.
No where in scripture does it mention Jesus was gay. Yet on the other hand we have the ever present MM, present at the crucifixion, present at the resurrection, who by definition plays a huge part in jesus's life.
Talking of conspiracies, I think this is one of the biggest ones ever, you don't need to be educated to realise what the church has done here and continues to do to this day. The RCC don't like women, they don't like them in their scripture, they don't like them in their ministry and they've done their best to keep them out of both since time and memorial.
LDV wasn't painting a young effeminate John, because such a figure doesn't exist in history, he was painting a woman and showing us that the RCC is the most vile, sexist and prejudice organisation in history IMHO.