The OP was asking if there was any indication in the Gospels if Mary was present, and specifically excluded historical analysis (an “in-universe” analysis, if you will),
John indicates that she was there.
The issue of whether Mary remained a virgin is a dogmatic point of discussion in the church(es). YMMV.
James is frequently described as “the brother of Jesus”.
Assuming Mary was young enough to be unmarried when she caught the Holy Avian Flu, 33 years plus say, 15 would make her about 48 at that time.
The more interesting aspect of the Pieta is the relative sizes of the bodies. But then, the same body proportions trick applies to Michaelangelo’s statue of David, where National Lampoon’s sexual orientation test said “circle any body parts you think are the wrong size.”
My wife worked at McDonalds, back in her early days. The place they assembe the burgers was known as the “prep table” so when we saw that, we decided it was “Jesus’ prep table”.
(BTW, the way I heard it was “Paul Bunyan’s Axe” so heavily used by him he’d replaced the handle 5 times and the head 3 times, but still his original axe, which fits in with the other tall tales…)
At the Crucifixion, yes. But Jesus is still alive in the verses you quote, and they seem to say John took her home after that, before the next section where Jesus actually dies “later.”
That said, the NIV translates that last sentence this way: “From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.” If that is the meaning, then Mary could still be there.
I had thought that Mary was listed as present when Jesus was removed from the cross and buried by Joseph of Arimathea. But John only mentions Nicodemus, and the other gospels mention Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of Joseph. You’d think they’d mention her if she had held Jesus for a bit.
I think the Pieta is symbolic of Mary’s grief. She’s bearing the weight of Jesus’s death, as a mother would. All while he bore the weight of the sins of the world. Michelangelo’s main version, in particular, makes Mary bigger so that she can cradle Jesus more like he was still a baby. And, as said above, she’s also still youthful.
I’ve always interpreted that verse as Jesus telling the disciple he loved (most probably John) to take care of his mother after he was gone. We don’t know if Joseph was still alive at the time of Jesus’ death, so maybe it was just a practical advice to make sure his mother was cared for.
Yeah, this was before retirement homes: When you got old, you’d be taken care of by your children or other younger relatives. But Jesus was dying before his mother, and so he had to make other arrangements to care for her.
I agree that’s the main meaning. I can see no other meaning to “behold your mother” from Jesus. It’s that part I quoted that I’m less sure on. NP’s quote from the (more literal) NKJV implies he took her home right then. But the NIV quote implies that “took her into his home” is not literal. I guess I’ll take a look at the Greek translation notes.
Every other translation I find implies that the NIV has it right. It just means that this is when John adopted Mary into his home. Maybe it’s just the leftovers from the KJV and older English that threw me.
I don’t see the quote as meaning “immediately”. The construction “from that [time]” is a common way of indicating that a permanent change was made and is ongoing.
When you see it in person, that’s so apparent. The grief is practically overwhelming. Masterpiece indeed.
That’s some world-class procrastination there…
Visual interpretations of written narratives have always extrapolated. The assumption is that the narrative didn’t cover every minute of the event. It is enough to be plausible: the exact moment doesnt need to be documented.
In my mind, the Pieta is a plausible extrapolation.
He was the son of god. Everything he did - even procrastinating - was super!
(That’s also why bullets just bounced off his chest)
Michelangelo didn’t create the Pietà on spec; it was commissioned by a French cardinal for his funeral chapel. (Going by Wikipedia, here). Presumably, the cardinal would have expected Michelangelo to abide by the conventions of religious art, which said that Mary was the most perfect human to live, after the big JC hisself. Michelangelo followed the boss’s instructions; artistic innovation is all well and good, but a paisan gotta make the rent first, no?
Wikipedia suggests that Mary’s appearance in the sculpture is inspired by a line from the Divine Comedy.
Yes, I think that’s likeliest. He wasn’t about to make Jesus look Middle-Eastern in the Sistine Chapel either. That just wasn’t done or even considered. A haggard, elderly Mary wasn’t happening.
It’s a moving masterpiece, artistic liberties notwithstanding.
Didn’t work for the nails, though.
Hardly childless- Jesus had a good number of brothers, etc.
That’s a much disputed question in Christianity (I as an outsider tend to believe he did have siblings), but according to the guide, Mary remained a virgin all her life, or else his point wouldn’t make sense.
That is mostly the Catholic Church. The bible is pretty damn clear on this.
Yeah, a Catholic tenet, but of course the Pieta we’re talking about is a Catholic piece of art produced for the Vatican.