Talk:Last Supper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Last Supper[edit]

Well as I looked at the last supper,I thought who owns the hand with the knife?thats weird,if you have an answer write me at (nathanaelgaray@yahoo.com),thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nategaray (talkcontribs) 01:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is an interesting view of the hidden secrets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mcpHsuTm_E

Pantomine practice[edit]

The nonsense of "after pantomine practice" entered the Last Supper page at "15:58, 12 Dec" by 195.194.148.2

"15:56" was the first abuse, "15:58" then reverted most but not all of the first abuse, leaving that nonsense fragment with its unusual spelling behind.

195.194.148.2 received a "fourth level warning" on 19 Dec.

I was going to get rid of that ThyKingdomDie (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This talk page and the article are from 2001 before there was a cut-and-paste move of the article to The Last Supper

If anyone cares, I have put the three variant names (Eucharist, Communion, and Lord's Supper) as redirection links to this page because the Last Supper is the common root of their history, and they are best understood in that context.

As an attempt to support the Neutral Point of View, I didn't see that using any of the three names as the main document name would support neutrality. All traditions can agree that their observance meeting is from the Last Supper, but there are those who would be upset characterizing their observance as 'just another name' for another denomination's service.


Larry, so you disagree with my reasoning?

I personally don't see anything wrong with it...


well, I would disagree that people in the Catholic tradition would expect The Last Supper to be the main entry. The Eucharistic liturgy is part - the greater part, but still part - of the Mass. Communion as practiced in much of the Protestant tradition is at its most frequent weekly (the denomination called the 'Christian Churches') and often only quarterly (the Calvinist tradition). So, no, I don't think it's neutral. Certainly the highly developed Catholic *theology* of the Eucharist is going to get an entry of its own, at least. In the Catholic tradition "communion" has another, separate ecclesiological meaning of 'what bishops are in union with each other", sobornost in the Russian orthodox tradition. --MichaelTinkler

You know my name; it would be nice to know yours!

I guess I am disagreeing with your reasoning, although I apologize for failing to note why I made my changes. (I didn't read closely enough.) I think that each of these traditions has its own meaning and history. Why not put each on its own page? Wikipedia has lots of room to grow; there's no particularly good reason to want to condense everything onto one page. Certainly the roots of each of these traditions can be explored on the one The Last Supper page, insofar as the traditions have similar roots. Otherwise, why should someone go to a page called The Last Supper to learn what's idiosyncratic about the Eucharist, for example? The logical place to look would be a Eucharist page.

Besides, there doesn't have to be any one "main entry," for the same reason--we've got endless room to grow. So I think we should discuss widgets on pages about widgets.  :-) --Larry Sanger


Okay, I'll go with separating them, after all you have more experience in this than I do. I agree the theology of the different traditions will make a difference, I just thought that putting them all on the same page would make it easier to contrast and compare, rather than requiring a reader to go to four or more separate pages, with their necessary duplications (due to establishing context).


But it would certainly make sense to compare and contrast them on some page, perhaps The Last Supper. We can do both! This is Wikipedia! --LMS


If I remember correctly, having been brought up as a Catholic, we called it communion just as often as we called it eucharist. I know communion also has another meaning (what Michael mentioned), but that's not something a young boy or girl going their first communion (never in my experience called first eucharist) would realise... We never called it the Lord's Supper though. -- SJK


I am considering editing the following text because I believe it asserts an interpretation more than it presents actual facts; however, being new to Wikipedia I am hesitant to just post an edit without floating the idea first. The current text I wish to edit reads:

'This belief is based on the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels, but the chronology in the Gospel of John has the Last Supper occurring before the Passover, for in that Gospel, Christ's death occurs at the time of the slaughter of the Passover lambs (this latter chronology is the one accepted by the Orthodox Church).'

I would propose it should read:

'This belief is based on the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels, but the chronology in the Gospel of John is regarded by many as placing the Last Supper on the evening before the Passover (John 13:1, 18:28). References in John's Gospel to the Day of Preparation of the Passover (John 19:14, 31, and 42), are also taken by many to indicate that Christ's death occured at the time of the slaughter of the Passover lambs (this latter chronology is the one accepted by the Orthodox Church). However, those that place the Last Supper during a Thursday evening Passover Seder generally regard Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7 as the only explicit references in the Gospels to the slaying of Passover lambs at the time of Christ's crucifixion, and take the Day of Preparation in the Gospel of John as a likely reference to the Passover Friday during which preparations were made for the weekly Sabbath rest.'

I further consider the following statement to be a mischaracterization and overstatement of what the Synoptic Gospels actually say:

'The Synoptic Gospels state ... that in the morning of the same day the Paschal lamb, for the meal, had been sacrificed.'

Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7, in fact only state that the Paschal lambs were killed on the first Day of Unleavened bread during which Jesus' disciples prepared to eat the Passover, without any clear reference as to what portion of the day the slaying took place. The phrase "in the morning" is absent from the Synoptic accounts on this subject so far as I can tell, and therefore the ensuing discussion in the article of the unfamiliarity of Synoptic Gospel writers with Jewish time reckoning has little factual merit in my view.

Absent a specific chapter and verse Gospel reference that substantiates the statement in the article, I would propose to delete that paragraph or at a minimum change it to read that 'The Synoptic Gospels state that the Last Supper took place during a Passover Seder, and imply that in the morning of the same day the Paschal lamb, for the meal, had been sacrificed.' and add at the conclusion of the paragraph that 'The statements of the Synoptic Gospel on the subject of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb are seen by many as being sufficiently broad to allow the sacrifice to have taken place in the evening.'

I also would like input and help on how best to incorporate the specific Gospel chapter and verse references. --RichInChrist

Since no one has chosen to respond to my earlier discussion, I have chosen to make edits to the Chronology Section based on the discussion I presented above. As my statements reflect and credibly defend the widely held opinion of a Thursday evening Last Supper during a Passover Seder while acknoledging alternative views, I feel my edits are in accordance with the NPOV.

I also believe that John 13:1 does not state that the Last Supper was held before the Passover, but rather that boiled down it states "Now before the Feast of Passover ... He loved (His own disciples who were in the world) to the end". The greek here is very difficult, so I won't be dogmatic, but it appears to me that the many qualifying phrases simply are intended to distinguish this particular Passover from the previous ones in John's Gospel where Christ's hour had not yet come.

The statement that those who turned Jesus over to Pilate would not enter the Preatorium so that they might eat the Passover (John 18:28) is probably the most compelling verse for holding that John's Gospel presents an alternative chronology from that of the Synoptic Gospels. However, scholors such as Mathew Henry have identified other sacrifices offered during the day following the evening Passover meal (called the Chagigah or passover-bullock) that would have been eaten by the priestly class and likely would have been considered to be part of eating the Passover. --RichInChrist


I'm going to remove the vandalism from this article (the Big Mac reference and other atrocities).--128.36.70.128 17:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The last supper was very happy because Jesus The Lord, has resen again. I've got here song for you

(1) Lord Jesus Christ you will come to us Mary Son; you have a tancion ofcourse you do you have a love from us; living lord!

So lights up the fire let them grow. Open the doors and Jesus Return. Take sits of the spirit let them grow, and tell to the people of Jesus that he is love show

(2) Go Through the park turn into the mind; the sun has go up the night came to die and ask to the people of Jesus where is he gone

So lights up the fire let them grow. Open the doors and Jesus Return. Take sits of the spirit let them grow, and tell to the people of Jesus that he is love show

Just a note on signing comments[edit]

Please remember to sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically print your signature and date-stamp the comment. Thank you. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The decision to entitle this article The Last Supper strikes me as odd. The phrase "The Last Supper" occurs nowhere in scripture. The designations The Lord's Supper, Communion, and Eucharist either occur in scripture (I Corinthians 11:20 κυριακον δειπνον, Lord's Supper) in direct reference to the Christian practice or derive from Biblical discussion of the same (I Corinthians 10:16, κοινωνια ... του αιματος του Χριστου ... κοινωνια του σωματος Χριστου, "communion ... of the blood of Christ ... communion of the body of Christ"; I Corinthians 11:24 και ευχαριστησας "and having given thanks" [eucharistesas]). Also, I think that it ought to be acknowledged that the earliest account is not that of Mark or the other Evangelists but that which the Apostle Paul says he received from the Lord (I Corinthians 11:23 and following).Bro. Neal 01:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this on MSN 07/27/2007 ... New ‘Last Supper’ theory crashes Web sites Amateur scholar claims Leonardo painting reveals mysterious figures

Da Vinci Code[edit]

The Last Supper painting is argued to confirm that the figure to the left of Jesus is not John, but Mary Magdalene, Jesus's wife... see Da Vinci Code, q.v. , a book of FICTION, but written esp from theories of Jesus marrying the Magdalene esp espoused in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, q.v.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.179.179 (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The claims of The Da Vinci Code are poppycock. Dan Brown is really good at drumming up controversy, which is really good for drumming up sales. But his "historical research" is laughable, as a number of real historians have proved beyond doubt. With regard to "Mary Magdalene" in the Last Supper, even the most cursory examination of other contemporary artists reveals that they also depict John as a young man with delicate features, an artistic tradition which was already old in Da Vinci's day. There is nothing remarkable in his depiction of John in the Last Supper; nothing to suggest he intended anything other than a traditional Christian depiction. The work was, after all, commissioned; and any sensible artist is not going to challenge the beliefs of his client. Da Vinci was a good businessman, whatever his personal beliefs might have been. At any rate, imho, this discussion probably belongs in the article The Last Supper (Leonardo) rather than here. MishaPan (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Dan Brown was right about Y'shua ben Yosef and Mary Magdalen being married, but he missed alot of the secrets kept over the centuries. Leonardo da Vinci knew of the legend that Mary Magdalen had first been married to John the Baptist and had his son John the Apostle. In the tradition of the day, the closest relative - Y'shua ben Yosef - married his widow and adopted their son. Magdalen and the Apostle John were present at the foot of the Cross and the Romans only allowed the immediate family this 'privilege' at a crucifixion. The Apostle John looked like his mother Mary Magdalen and Leonardo encoded this great secret. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:445B:F831:9E37:DBE7 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Superimposed images of Da Vinci's pix[edit]

Supposedly superimposing DaVinci's Last Supper with its mirror image produces an additional figure that looks like a Templar Knight and another figure cradling a baby. In addition, a chalice appears in front of Jesus. I have seen the chalice, but don't have the proper tools to examine the image further. Jim-Merced, CA

I don't see the things you say. Where can I get a wiki-copyright-compatible better resolution version of this pix, to produce a better overlaid image? E4mmacro 06:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Earliest description[edit]

I rectified what looked like a glaring omission - the first written description of the Lord's Supper, that in 1 Cor. I suppose there will be some objection to saying the next description is Mark's - some will claim Matthew, but it appears clumsy to say the next written description is one of the synoptic gospels, which ever was written first. E4mmacro 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dating 1 Corithinians[edit]

Can anyone really date the writing of 1 Cor to the spring of a certain year? What is that sort of accuracy based on? E4mmacro (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Read, for instance, this article. Lima (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bread at a Seder?[edit]

Bread is never eaten during a proper Seder. It's a sin to eat khamets during Passover. This needs some serious changing. 79.179.101.150 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In English, "bread" can be leavened or unleavened. Lima (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene in the painting?[edit]

Look at the place of honor, to the right of Christ. What originally appears to be a man actually unveils itself as a woman, presumed to be Mary Magdalene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThyKingdomDie (talkcontribs) 23:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange that some people cannot count up to 12, the number of the apostles. Dan Brown could no doubt count to 12, but he preferred to count the money he got for not doing so. 83.71.85.171 (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Judas Iscariot could be absent from the scene, having already left, as indicated in John 13:30-31. -Servant David (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The tradition of having one femininized man among the apostles was well-established by time Leonardo painted this. He's not the first or last to do this.--LeValley 16:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci knew of the legend that Mary Magdalen had first been married to John the Baptist and had his son John the Apostle. In the tradition of the day, the closest relative - Y'shua ben Yosef - married his widow and adopted their son. Magdalen and the Apostle John were present at the foot of the Cross and the Romans only allowed the immediate family this 'privilege' at a crucifixion. The Apostle John looked like his mother Mary Magdalen and Leonardo encoded this great secret. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:445B:F831:9E37:DBE7 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete/Move information relating to the painting[edit]

The entire pop culture section is about Leonardo DaVinci's painting, rather than the Biblical event. Shouldn't this information be moved to the page on the last supper paining, if it's not already there? Same goes for other information relating only to the painting. 67.175.252.35 (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sensible suggestion, I think. Lima (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Esoglou (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Study: Last Supper helpings have grown[edit]

An interesting study of various portrayals of the Last Supper has shown that the servings have increased from the years 1000 to 2000.

"Last Supper helpings have grown" Los Angeles Times —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaDoc540 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Christian Gospels do not use the term "the Last Supper"[edit]

Esoglou, of course you are right. Keep up the good work and Happy Holidays - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

"By the Last Supper is meant the final meal that Jesus shared with his twelve disciples before his death." By the Last Supper is meant?? What is this, an encyclopedia or a bible text? -- Imladros (talk)

What else is meant by "the Last Supper" capitalized? In particular, what do you mean by it? Esoglou (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Good catch, Imladros. Lots of these pages can use a once-over for writing style. Leadwind (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

big picture[edit]

I'd like the lead to tell the reader how the Last Supper figures into the core Christian themes of salvation and church. I'm trying to say how the Last Supper is related to one's ultimate concern, the salvation of one's eternal soul. Briefly, "What Christ did." And since the Last Supper is the start of the Eucharist, it bears on the identity of the Church. We're close now, but I don't feel like the story is complete. The Last Supper seems to be the place where Jesus created a ritual that would actually help people avoid being damned, and the ritual has this power because the participants take part in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. The Last Supper is a big deal, and the lead doesn't quite get that across. Leadwind (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The first problem with this is that Christ never says anything about damnation at the Last Supper, nor does any Christian writer identify the ritual as having the power to prevent damnation. I agree the Last Supper is a big deal, but it is always identified as a big deal because it's a memory of Christ's death on the behalf of others, not because it has any power of its own. The lede does need to show that the connection with the cross is in mind, and could certainly do that better.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I'm talking here about what the Last Supper means in Christian tradition, not what it meant to Jesus or even to the first chroniclers of the Last Supper. The damnation connection is part of this Christian tradition. In the Catholic Church, isn't it a mortal sin to skip Mass (i.e., you get damned)? I mean, there's something supernatural going on with the Mass, right? It's not just a ceremony. And traditionally, once the Cluny monastery got things moving, you could get a Mass done for you to reduce your time time in purgatory. Even in St. Paul's day, the people who were doing the Lords' Supper wrong were getting sick or even dying. I mean, there does seem to be something divine and powerful going on with the Eucharist. It seems to have something of a central role in God's plan for salvation, especially in Western Christianity. I don't want an unchurched reader to get the idea that the sacrament that Jesus is instituting is just a nice ceremony. Any suggestions are welcome. Leadwind (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
All the points you are making are indeed addressed in the Eucharist article. As opposed to this article which is NOT about the ceremony but rather the event. There may need to be a DAB or SEEALSO link at the top or in the text but the ideas you are espousing are more suited to the article on the ceremony itself. Padillah (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that what you're talking about is addressed in the Eucharist article, and specifically in the Roman Catholic interpretation. For the majority of non-Catholic Christian denominations, nothing supernatural happens in the communion meal (it's just a memorial ceremony), and no one is damned to hell for skipping it. Paul doesn't speak of people who are sick and dying because they didn't partake of the communion meal, he was talking about those who did attend, but used the opportunity for a good feed instead of remembering Christ.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, so if there isn't anything in general we can say about how the Eucharist relates to salvation, what about the new covenant? Is there anything we can say about this new covenant Jesus instituted? Isn't this new covenant superior to the old one (see Hebrews)? Isn't it the covenant that allows people to be saved outside the Law? In the history of God's plan for salvation, the Last Supper seems to be a major step. Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Looking through the relevant commentaries, I find a consistent description of the last supper as the institution of a memorial meal. The New Covenant was instituted at this meal, and since that has an article of its own can't we get something from it?--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I like the current text enough that I don't feel any need to change it, though the new covenant article apparently needs some beefing up. Leadwind (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry to disagree but I think the current lead doesn't adquately emphasize the linkage of the Last Supper to the Eucharist and the centrality of the Eucharist/communion which is indeed central to most Trinitarian Nicene Christians (I confess I have no knowledge of what the Mormons and JWs think in this regard. I suspect the JWs view the Eucharistic celebration as a terrible, horrific idea and therefore we should mention that although very briefly.)

AFAIK, every Trinitarian Nicene Christian group celebrates communion and baptism (for the Baptists, those are the only two ordinances commanded by Jesus Christ). Although the Catholics have seven Sacraments, baptism and communion are by far and away the most important. The Eucharistic celebration is rooted in the Last Supper and the connection of the Last Supper to this important celebration needs to be strongly emphasized. The Last Supper is the "last supper" because it immediately preceded Christ's Passion, crucifixion and resurrection which is the central event in Christian soteriology. (That said, it's probably only a matter of adding a few extra words here and there.)

I just wanted to emphasize clearly that Leadwind's earlier comments about the importance of the Last Supper are mostly valid. Except that it is not communion which provides salvation, it is Christ's resurrection and the faith of the individual Christian in accepting Christ as his savior that provides salvation. The Eucharistic celebration is a memorial to act of faith which brings salvation (baptism) and the continuing act of faith that provides salvation. These linkages need to be made clearly in the lead and then explained in more detail in the article. (NB: Yes, I know that the idea that baptism brings salvation is more of a Catholic idea and that some Protestants might argue that "works of man" like the sacraments cannot impart the grace of God. It's just that Leadwind was talking from a Catholic POV so I am responding from a Catholic POV.)

Time is short for me this morning so I will stop here. If everyone agrees, I will try to work on doing some of the above in the coming days. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd love for you to build this out along the lines you suggest. If it's too hard to synthesize Catholic and Protestant beliefs, we can talk about what's "traditionally" been true, and that would let us slant it more toward the Catholic position without implicitly excluding Protestants. Leadwind (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll try. This article has been on my watchlist but, as you know, it's not one that I've been heavily involved in until just now. I'll try to take a stab at it when time permits. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're actually disagreeing with Richard. The lede certainly needs to mention a robust connection between the Last Supper and the "Eucharist" in the Roman and Orthodox Rites ("communion" in the majority of non-Roman/Orthodox traditions; yes the JWs do celebrate the communion meal), but I don't want this article to start copy/pasting great chunks from the Eucharist article, nor do I want the article slanted towards the Catholic position (WP:NPOV).--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
We absolutely don't want to slant the article towards any position, Catholic or otherwise. I think what we need to do is spell out the differences between different opinions. I don't doubt that JWs celebrate the communion meal. What I'm wondering about is what they think of the concept of eating the Body of Christ and drinking the Blood of Christ. Knowing how they feel about blood transfusions, I'm guessing there might be an issue with concepts such as transsubstantion. (At least that's my supposition. I haven't been involved in JW-related articles for a couple of years.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You're talking about the Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist, not the Last Supper or even the communion meal. Certainly the JWs object to the Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist, but I don't see how this is relevant to the article. I don't believe there are many different interpretations of the Last Supper, which is the actual subject of the article. Differences of opinion over the Eucharist belong in the article on the Eucharist.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
You're absolutely right that my comments above blurred the distinctions between the Last Supper, the Eucharist and the communion meal. It would be a lot easier to cover all of those in one article but, since we don't have that situation, it is important to keep the distinctions clear. I tried to keep them clear in my revised version of the lead paragraph. Do you think I succeeded? The key, IMO, is to establish the linkages without getting caught up in discussing the details which should be relegated to the other articles. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
OK... my earlier demurral is now inoperative. I couldn't resist being bold and taking a whack at rewriting the lead along the lines that I outlined above. Take a look at it and tell me if I have got it headed in the right direction. I pulled out some stuff that I thought was of lesser importance. We can bring up some of that stuff in the main body of the article text. I just think we should focus in on the key point which is that the Last Supper is used as the scriptural basis for the Eucharist/communion/Lord's Supper which is a central feature of Christian worship and practice. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I gave the lead a once-over to tighten the language. The fewer words used to get the point across, the better. Also, I think once we identify the paragraph as being about Christian belief, we can assume that every sentence in the paragraph carries the assumed opening clause, "According to Christianity..." So we don't have to repeat it. We can say "Jesus instituted a new covenant" and the reader knows we're talking about the Christian version of events. But E and Tb re going to be your critics on this, not me. Finally, as for my unfortunate use of the word "slant," let me say that from my perspective every article is going to slant either toward Catholicism (if the article covers what has traditionally been the case) or toward Protestantism (if the article covers what is today the case). You get two different answers to the question of "what is Christianity?" if you mean "what has it been overall historically including today" than if you mean "what is the overall shape of Christianity today." For example, is Christianity defined by the episcopal structure? Bishops were a much bigger deal historically than they are today. Leadwind (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I did some rephrasing (I doubt many would argue this is a Christianity article) and some trimming. I think there's going to be more yelling over the trimming so I'll address that. I removed what I found to be detailed descriptions of the Eucharist ceremony rather than a summary of the impact of the Last Supper on the ceremony. The mention is made and the appropriate links are in place to direct people to the ceremony should they feel the need to investigate this. I must admit, I am trying to assume good faith but the insistence that this article mentioning the import and centrality of the Eucharist ceremony troubles me. We need to be careful we don't start proselytizing. Padillah (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul's version[edit]

It is strictly incorrect to say that according to Paul's description of the Last Supper, Jesus gave his disciples bread, and commanded his disciples to do this in memory of him, where a reader will assume "disciples" means the famous twelve. Paul never mentions disciples, and never says The Lord was talking to them. If Paul is claiming to be repeating a direct revelation, which seems likely, Paul may well be saying the Lord is talking directly to all his followers including those Corinthians to whom Paul is writing. The page takes material from the Gospels and reads it into Paul, where Paul does not explictly say it. Some revision is needed? E4mmacro (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Article clean up[edit]

I have just started looking at this article and I do see the need for clean up. Some basic and very obvious examples:

  • There are so many randomly scattered images that create a chaotic page which is hard to read. I wrote Last Supper in Christian art today, after I saw the injustice done to the art here, so we can just refer to that as a Main and move most images to a gallery, so it will be better organized.
  • There are unsourced and incorrect statements, e.g. the assertion of the equality of Al-Ma'ida and the Last Supper. A table in the Qur'an that has food is not necessarily the Last Supper, and indeed, as pointed out in Christology in dialogue with Muslims by Ivor Mark Beaumont 2005 ISBN 1870345460 page 145 :"there is nothing in sura 5:113 to indicate that Jesus was celebrating that meal regarding his impending death". In other words, Sura 5:113 may refer to "a meal" and no proof that it is the Last Supper. So the content of that section is just pure WP:OR based on the primary, and is incorrect.
  • Key encyclopedic facts are missing. I do not know how we can have an article on the Last Supper and not even mention Calvin etc. and the developments of the events of that evening to the Eucharistic and Lord's Supper traditions, etc. In fact the only mention of the Protestants at the end is in the Name section at the end which mentions Zwingli. And by the way, that section is totally unreferenced.
  • There are many sourcing issues. The Agape section is full of citation needed flags etc. Overall there are many inaccurate statements, and generalizations based on a single source are often stated as fact. That needs to change.
  • And of course there is a link farm at the end, which leads to junk sites most of the time. Wikipedia is getting links farms all over now, and as in other cases, that needs clean up.

I will start by fixing the art, then try to do more clean up. History2007 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"...Jesus had instructed a pair of unnamed disciples to go to the city to meet a man carrying a jar of water, who would lead them to a house, where they were to ask for the room where the teacher has a guest room." I can see the point of this sentence, but I understand neither its grammar in terms of "the teacher [having] a guest room," nor the assumption made therein, from the description given in Mt 26:18, Mk 14:14, and Lk 22:11. I would correct it myself, but as there has been so much talk about, and so much reversion of, other corrections on this page, I will leave it to someone who is more familiar with what has been done with the page previously. StavinChain (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no big deal here - seems clear to me. But please feel free to clarify it if it seems unclear to you. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

bread[edit]

In the first part of the artcle, the first time the word bread is mention, should (unlevened) not be place before it? Govvy (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There are different interpretations about whether the bread at the Last Supper was leavened or unleavened. Esoglou (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
In fact the gospels do not seem to specify it anyway, e.g. mattheww 26:26 "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples," just says bread, without specifying it. The rest would be biblical speculation probably. History2007 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the Last Supper was a Passover Seder, it would have obviously been unleavened bread. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:445B:F831:9E37:DBE7 (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The big text table in Institution of the Eucharist[edit]

I had not looked at this page for a little while, now I see that there is a big table about the gospels and 1 Corinth etc. The material is probably "correct" in that it represents the gospel texts, but my first feeling seeing it was that it will give a first time reader indigestion. Most readers are trying to figure out what the Last Supper was etc. and details of textual comparison is probably setting the article back in terms of its usefulness to the majority of the readers. I think it should probably move out to a page called Textual analysis of the biblical accounts of the Last Supper or something like that.

As is, that table just does not seem to help the page. History2007 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is different. I think the table is not worth a separate article, and that the differences between the four scriptural account are both important for the Last Supper article and of interest even to the general reader. To my mind, the length is not excessive. To see an excessively long and unhelpful presentation of the material, go to Origin of the Eucharist#Allusions to the Eucharist in the New Testament. Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the verbosity Olympics at that other article makes this look feeble. If you think this needs to stay I will leave it there, but the header bold text should become normal and there should be links to the Gospels. In a day or two I will try to redecorate it to make it less of an eyesore without changing the text. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it the Last Supper or the last supper?[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Christianity#Application of MOS guidelines on capitalization in articles on Christianity. Jojalozzo 19:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Books have it overwhelmingly capitalized in sentence context, for more than 100 years. This is not very analogous to the Talk:Crown of Thorns issue, where it was mentioned. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
These older threads need to get archived. That issue was discussed at length on Project Christianity and now seems resolved. History2007 (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Date format[edit]

This 2011-JAN-13 edit by a SmackBot added { { uses dmy } } when no date format was present within the article. A date format of mdy was added 2011-APR-19.--JimWae (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible Parallels[edit]

The current text states "The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) documents also specifically reject the Seder arguments and state that given that no Jewish Seder texts exist earlier than the 9th century, it is historically implausible to attempt a reconstruction of the Seder to create a parallel to the Last Supper, and that the Gospel accounts clearly indicate that the purpose of the Last Supper was not the annual repetition of the Exodus". This is clearly a mistake, since much of the Jewish Seder text (a.k.a. the Haggadah) is found in the Mishna and the Mekhilta (exgesis on Exodus from the time of the Mishna) i.e. from the time of Jesus! Can anyone clarify the argument of the Presbyterian Church further? --PloniAlmoni (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

1st Night of Passover Thursday April 6, 30 AD / 6.4.783 AUC / 14 Nisan 3790 HC[edit]

The Last Supper was a Passover Seder on Thursday April 6, 30 AD / 6.4.783 AUC / 14 Nisan 3790 HC and Jesus son of Joseph was arrested afterward. His trial took place immediately through the night. In the morning of the 1st day of Passover Friday April 7, 30 AD / 7.4.783 AUC / 14 Nisan 3790 HC , he was found guilty of heresy (by the Jewish leaders) and sedition (by the Roman leaders). He was then lashed 39 times and crucified for six hours. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC) revised 2601:589:4705:C7C0:445B:F831:9E37:DBE7 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I added If Jesus was crucified on the 1st Day of Passover, Friday April 7, 30 AD / 7.4.783 AUC, then the Last Supper/Passover Seder would have been on Thursday April 6, 30 AD / 6.4.783 AUC. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. Wikipedia accepts only what can be shown to be found in a reliable published source, not just what an editor believes to be true. Esoglou (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Most every source has Y'shua crucified on either Friday April 7, 30 AD or on Friday April --, 33 AD. Since God-incarnate was born on Saturday April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755 (see astronomer http://MichaelMolnar.com ), the Messiah would have been 34-years-old in 30 AD. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:445B:F831:9E37:DBE7 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Depiction[edit]

You need a reliable source to claim that Mt 26:20 was mistaken when he says they reclined, not sat- but I never said that... - Never wrote anything about reclined in contrast of sitting -, I AM aware that they historically reclined and didn't sat with the table those times. I was talking about left and right, mind. I know very well that when apostles are depicted sitting with the table it is an anachronism, but note that I never ever discussed that part, I don't know why on earth do you think I did. I was talking about that they are depicted sitting that is a simple fact, just look at the pictures - it is noting else but a fact. But never mind siting or not sitting.

However, I was talking about left and right. This is not a historical fact but it's Christian iconography. You are looking to this from the wrong angle. In the Bible, the place of honor was to the right hand, because of the texts in the Bible,http://www.wga.hu/html_m/g/grebber/inviting.html it has a pure symbolic meaning. It doesn't matter what the Greek did. There are loads of things depicted in the religious paintings that symbolize a certain thing but it has nothing to do with actual customs and historical facts. It could have been mentioned in the apocryphal gospels or Golden Legends, for example. In the Bible sitting on the right hand has a tremendous significance. I gave you some Bible citations but you go remove it. Find yourself something better then, but I can assure you that this is completely correct in all ways. Hafspajen (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Christ in Majesty is sitting at the right hand. The sinners are usually depicted to the left for example at scenes of the last judgment, and so on. It is nothing but elementary basic iconography. I don't understand why you keep removing it. Hafspajen (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The trouble was the statement, in this context, "The place of honor was to the right hand at the time, though, like in this painting." I presume that "at the time" means at the time of the Last Supper. What other time was meant? At the time of the Last Supper, as also today, the place of honour, when seated side by side, was indeed on the right. When reclining for a meal, was the place of honour on the right? That needs to be sourced. In fact, there are sources that seem to contradict it. (At a meal today, the French custom is that the place of honour is directly opposite the host, each seated in the middle of the long side of the table, while what the English call the head of the table is merely le bout de table, the table end, the place of least honour.)
The position of John does not seem to have any special relevance to the Bloch depiction. Of the depictions in the article, John is immediately on Jesus' right not only in that by Bloch, but also in the much better known Leonardo depiction and in those of von Uhde, the 13th-century Russian icon, and Bouveret. The rest put John on Jesus' left. If the question is to be treated, doesn't it deserve a paragraph of its own in the body of the article?
As you doubtless know, if John was the unnamed disciple who, according to John 13:23, was reclining close to Jesus (literally: "in his bosom") and who had to lean back to him to ask him a question (John 13:25), then John was in fact at Jesus' left or, if you prefer, he had his back to Jesus' front. When artists pictured them as sitting upright, they often depicted this disciple as, it seems, sleepily nodding away against Jesus' chest, whether they put him to the right or the left of Jesus. Esoglou (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, at that time was unprecise, sorry - I understand now how that caused misunderstanding. As you say the position of John is immediately on Jesus' right at the Bloch depiction, Leonardo depiction and in those of von Uhde, the 13th-century Russian icon, and Bouveret. The rest put John on Jesus' left. Quite so. It might deserve a paragraph of its own in the body of the article. But the point is I don't know if anyone has treated this in art history in any greater dephts. I mean I don't know about any reliable references. Maybe Ceoil knows about any books or literature? Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)