5 ms·
I assume the one without a halo is Judas. Rather ironic, since without his betrayal there would have been no absolution of humanity's sins.
by GarrisonPrime 7y ago
I assume the one without a halo is Judas.
Rather ironic, since without his betrayal there would have been no absolution of humanity's sins.
- todd3834 7y agoI hadn’t noticed one didn’t have a halo! Thanks for pointing that out. Judas did play a role but the story doesn’t end well for him. He was also accused of stealing money from the group before this moment [0]. I think having a visible halo is kind of funny in general but giving one to all but Judas is actually a solid sense of humor from the artist. 0: https://biblehub.com/john/12-6.htm https://biblehub.com/john/12-6.htm Edit: typo
- krapp 7y ago> I think having a visible halo is kind of funny in general but giving one to all but Judas is actually a solid sense of humor from the artist. Given the prevalence of the belief in Christendom that Judas was cursed by God for his betrayal, I doubt it's meant to be taken as a joke.
- todd3834 7y agoPerhaps but I like my interpretation of the art more than yours. Not that yours is invalid. Also, anyone notice Jesus looks super Irish? I thought they would all look much more middle eastern than that.
- karmelapple 7y agoWalking through an art museum a few years ago, I was struck with how many depictions of Jesus had red hair. Once you start noticing it, it’s tough to miss... even though the chances of him looking like that is likely almost nil. Having someone who looks like your local populace, or what your local populace aspires to be, could help with people embracing or identifying with the person in the picture. This strategy was employed in a variety of religious paintings, and even in this one a little, such as the fava beans. Here’s a version in Peru that incorporated the local cuisine of guinea pigs and corn beer: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/guinea-pig-last-supper https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/guinea-pig-last-supper
- skinkestek 7y agoWhen I was a young angry kid it was sometimes pointed out to me that "yes, maybe that other kid deserves a real beating, but you should not do it." I was only so successful, I was liked - and somewhat feared - when I left one particular school. The idea still stands, just because something should be done doesn't mean the person who does it is innocent: If Eve is jealous and breaks into Alices house and kills her and that leads to someone discovering that Amice was plotting a bomb attack against a local school it still won't help Eve in court. Edit: I should probably point out that the person who said that would never beat a kid (or anyone else for that matter, and neither would I, now that I have grown up. It was a way of speaking, but I can easily see certain HNers reading it literally. )