Talk:Shroud of Turin#Statistics stuff

The 2022 study had attracted so much attention lately. So I think we should note it for the sake of completeness. 2A02:85F:E02A:42B1:6256:CC9F:F14A:C1D1 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

: I encourage you to read the many, many previous discussions on this Talk page (including its archives) about that topic. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::It still needs to be noted. It had attracted so much attention right now. Why we shouldn't point it out in the article? I know it's in the "Fringe theories" but the study hasn't been debunked yet, so...2A02:85F:E02A:42B1:6256:CC9F:F14A:C1D1 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::: {{tq|Why we shouldn't point it out in the article?}} If you are asking that question I can only assume you did not read those previous discussions. It is a lot to read, that's for sure, so how about this: you come up with suggested text for the article, sourced to significant coverage by reliable, independent, secondary sources (and to be clear, those sources really must be reliable, independent, and secondary to the "2022 study"; please read the Wikipedia policy WP:RS for guidance). Then you present that proposed content, including the sources, here. If WP:CONSENSUS, which is another Wikipedia policy, is in your favor, the content will be included in the article. Please go ahead and do that - that's what Wikipedia editors do, after all. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's because there is nothing to debunk about an entirely novel (that means entirely new and untested) dating method that hasn't been replicated. Roxy the dog 16:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|the study hasn't been debunked yet}} If you read the discussion immediately above this one, you will discover a good reason for concluding that the "study" actually debunked itself. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I quote Wikipedia: "The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke state that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus in a linen shroud "sindon" and placed it in a new tomb."

But there is no indefinite article "a" in the original Greek texts and therefore there are also Bible translations where "sindon" is considered/interpreted as general material description "linen cloth".

This is in accordance with the Gospel of John that says Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about 75 lbs (32 kg). Nicodemus and Joseph bound the body in linen cloths "othonia" together with the spices.

(a) sindon

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 4616: σινδών

σινδών, σινδονος, ἡ (of uncertain origin; Sanskritsindhu (Egyptian,sehenti or 'sent'; cf. Vanicek, Fremdwörter under the word); the Sept. for סָדִין, Judges 14:12; Proverbs 29:42 (), fine cloth (Latinsindon), i. e.:

1. linen cloth, especially that which was fine and costly, in which the bodies of the dead were wrapped: Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53 (cf. Herodotus 2, 86 who says of the Egyptians, κατειλισσουσι πᾶν τό σῶμα σινδονος βυσσινης (see Wilkinson's note in Rawlinson's Herod. 3rd edition, the passage cited)).

2. thing made of fine cloth: so of a light and loose garment worn at night over the naked body, Mark 14:51f (others suppose a sheet rather than a shirt to be referred to; A. V. linen cloth; cf. B. D. American edition, under the word Sheets). (Besides Herodotus, the writers Sophocles, Thucydides, Strabo, Lucian, others use the word.)

(b) othonion

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 3608: ὀθόνιον

ὀθόνιον, ὀθονιου, τό (diminutive of ὀθόνη, which see), a piece of linen, small linen cloth: plural strips of linen cloth for swathing the dead, Luke 24:12 (T omits; L Tr brackets WH reject the verse); John 19:40; John 20:5-7. (In Greek writings of ships' sails made of linen, bandages for wounds, and other articles; the Sept. for סָדִין, Judges 14:13; for פִּשְׁתֶּה or פֵּשֶׁת, Hosea 2:5(7),9(11).)

2001:4BB8:25D:FF52:0:0:14AD:91E (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:We aren't allowed to do our own textual analysis here. See Wikipedia:No original research. If there is a point to be made here, you would need to find a reliable source that makes that point.--Srleffler (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:If we are concerned about the precision of the words used, though, we should make sure we are using a scholarly Bible translation that tries to be very literal. I'm not sure what translation the passages quoted in the article are.

:{{quote |Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths [othonia] lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus' head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. |source=John 20:6–7}}

:This passage matches the NIV translation, except that that translation uses the phrase "strips of linen", not "linen cloths". It's possible this is some other translation, but it doesn't match any of the ones on [https://biblehub.com/john/20-6.htm this handy webpage].--Srleffler (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see. The error was introduced in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shroud_of_Turin&diff=next&oldid=1229062765 this edit], which changed the translation of references to the cloth from that used in the NIV to that used in the RSV, without changing the rest of the quotations. This is not OK. I will fix that, and switch the passages to NRSV, which is a more literal translation than NIV.--Srleffler (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::The original Greek texts below were taken from BibleHub - Interlinear. As you can see there is no "a" in Matthew, Mark and Luke. And John doesn't mention SINDON. But he emphasised that they wrapped the body in OTHONION together WITH THE SPICES.

::Matthew 27:59

::Greek:   kai - labōn - to - sōma - ho - Iōsēph - ENETYLIXEN [1794] - auto - en - SINDONI [4616] - kathara

::Literally: And - having taken - the - body - that/which - Joseph - WRAPPED - it - in - LINEN CLOTH - clean.

::Mark 15:46

::Greek:   kai - agorasas - SINDONA [4616] - kathelōn - auton - ENEILĒSEN [1750] - TĒ - SINDONI - kai - ethēken - auton - en - mnēmeiō - ho - ēn - lelatomēmenon - ek - petras - kai - prosekylisen - litho - epi - tēn - thyran - tou - mnēmeiou

::Literally:   And - having bought - LINEN CLOTH - having taken down - Him - HE WINDED IT IN - THE - LINEN CLOTH - and - laid - Him - in - tomb - which - was - cut - out of - rock - and - he rolled - stone - to - the - door - of the - tomb.

::Luke 23:53

::Greek:   kai - kathelōn - ENETYLIXEN [1794] - auto - SINDONI [4616] - kai - ethēken - auto - en - mnēmati - laxeutō - hou - ouk - ēn - oudeis - oupō - keimenos

::Literally:   And - having taken down - HE WRAPPED IN - it - LINEN CLOTH - and - placed - it - in - tomb - cut in rock - in which - no had been - no one - not yet - laid.

::John 19:40

::Greek:   elabon - oun - to - sōma - tou - Iēsou - kai - EDĒSAN [1210] - auto - OTHONIOIS [3608] - M E T A - tōn - arōmatōn - kathōs - ethos - estin - tois - loudaiois - entaphiazein

::Literally:   They took - therefore - the - body - that of - Jesus - and - BOUND IN/WITH - it - LINEN CLOTHS -   W I T H   - the - spices - as - custom - is - among - Jews - to prepare for burial.

::2001:4BB8:262:EDEE:0:0:C6C7:1899 (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Whatever. According to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE our own interpretation of the Bible is banned from Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::This isn't particular to the Bible; it's true of all sources. We can report what a source says. We can report what experts say about the source in reliable publications. We can use an expert translation of a foreign-language source if it's published in a reliable publication. The material above is of no use to us at all. There's nothing to work with there.--Srleffler (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Looking at this, you're not even honest. You said the text above is from BibleHub - Interlinear, but the interlinear translation of Matthew 27:59 on that site shows "σινδόνι" translated as "a linen cloth". Similarly in Mark σινδόνα is translated as "a linen cloth" and in Luke σινδόνι is translated as "in a linen cloth". Did you think no one would bother to check?--Srleffler (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I said that the ORIGINAL GREEK TEXTS are from BibleHub, not the literal translations. Those are are distinguishing and I don't know why BibleHub decided for the Berean Literal Translation.

::::Fact is that there are different translations of SINDON. And also the content of John 19:40 is described incompletely: "bound in linen cloths WITH THE SPICES". Each translation says that - there is no rocket-science behind.

::::I only want that these obvious general facts are mentioned in the main article - it's no exegesis.

::::And do you think that all the scolars responsible for e.g. the following translations consist(ed) of fools?

Mark 15:46 ESV

"And Joseph bought  a [?] linen shroud ..."

In this case there are 3 Greek words only:

"KAI   AGORASAS   SINDONA   ..."

This literally translated: 

"And   having bought   linen cloth   ..."

So, the CONTEXT is decisive and the correct unbiased translation/interpretation of SINDON must be "linen cloth" as general material description because Joseph of Arimathea bought ALL the needed burial linen cloth: bandages/strips (OTHONION) and the head cloth (SOUDARION).

New International Version

So Joseph bought some LINEN CLOTH, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the 

King James Bible

And he bought FINE LINEN, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre

New King James Version

Then he bought FINE LINEN, took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen. And he laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb

Christian Standard Bible

After he bought some LINEN CLOTH, Joseph took him down and wrapped him in the linen. Then he laid him in a tomb cut out of the rock and rolled a stone against the entrance to the tomb

Holman Christian Standard Bible

After he bought some FINE LINEN, he took Him down and wrapped Him in the linen. Then he placed Him in a tomb cut out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the entrance to the tomb

GOD'S WORD® Translation

Joseph had purchased some LINEN CLOTH. He took the body down from the cross and wrapped it in the cloth. Then he laid the body in a tomb, which had been cut out of rock, and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb

Webster's Bible Translation

And he bought FINE LINEN, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulcher which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone to the door of the sepulcher

Literal Standard Version

And he, having brought FINE LINEN, and having taken Him down, wrapped Him in the linen, and laid Him in a tomb that had been hewn out of a rock, and he rolled a stone to the door of the tomb

Young's Literal Translation

And he, having brought FINE LINEN, and having taken him down, wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre that had been hewn out of a rock, and he rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

... and many more.

2001:4BB8:262:EDEE:0:0:C6C7:1899 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:We're not interested in your opinions. Please WP:CITE WP:RS if you want to suggest edits. The Bible isn't WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Who is "we"?

::You wrote: "The Bible isn't"

::What a nonsens. The actual paragraph in question refers to the Bible anyway. Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself - you don't walk your talk.

::"... The Gospels of Matthew,[46] Mark,[47] and Luke[48] state that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus in a "linen cloth" or "linen shroud" (Greek: sindon) and placed it in a new tomb. The Gospel of John says he used linen cloths (Greek: othonia).[49] ..."

::Also the citations as links refer to BibleGateway > New Revised Standard Version. Is this Bible translation THE ONLY scientifically valid/approved one and consequently the only one that matches the standard of Wikipedia? Reason it if you can.

::And search how many translations of SINDON as "linen shroud" are there. The editor(s) of the whole paragraph seem to be either biased or they didn't make a good job.

::A correct unbiased/neutral text would be:

::"... The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke state - depending on the Bible translation - that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus in "a linen shroud/sheet/cloth" or "linen cloth" (Greek: sindon) and placed it in a new rock-tomb (sepulchre). The Gospel of John says they (Joseph and Nicodemus) bound the body in/with linen cloths (Greek: othonia) together with the spices, a 75 lbs (32 kg) mixture of myrrh and aloes.[49] ..."

2001:4BB8:260:62B6:0:0:CA97:6721 (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we remove the status quo text about this, sourced only to the bible? I'd be fine with restoring it if someone digs up secondary coverage and analysis. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:The status quo text isn't making any particular point about whether the linen cloth is singular, plural, or some quantity of linen. It just quotes each of the Bible passages that mentions Jesus' burial cloth(es), using a common well-established scholarly translation that aims to be "as literal as possible". We could have used some other well-established scholarly translation that aims for literality instead. We can't use some random anonymous user's attempt to translate Greek to English one-word-at-a-time. Languages don't work that way.

:I'll take the IP's suggestion above, though, that we acknowledge the variation among translations. For quibbling over words, one really needs a modern, scholarly, literal translation. The LSV, which was mentioned above, seems to qualify and does use just "clean linen" and "fine linen".--Srleffler (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for your time and the adaption:

::"The Gospels of Matthew,[46] Mark,[47] and Luke[48] state that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus in a "linen cloth" or "linen shroud" or just in "linen"[49] (Greek: sindon) and placed it in a new tomb. The Gospel of John says he used linen cloths (Greek: othonia), with a significant quantity of myrrh and aloes.[50]"

::But in my opinion the footnotes 46, 47 and 48 now contradict footnote 49. It suggests that the NRSVUE Bible translation is considered as the most reliable one. To beware Wikipedia's neutrality the footnote 49 at the end of the sentence, with a reference to BibleGateway, would be completely sufficient.

::And the Gospel of John says that they (Joseph and Nicodemus) used ... - not he.

::However - you are the experts.

::Kind regards,

::A Conservative Fundamental Christian 2001:4BB8:262:E1A8:0:0:CCEF:6149 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Note that the Bible is a reliable source for what the Bible itself says. We can't interpret, but we can quote it and can mention the observable fact that there are different translations that render a given passage differently. We need a reliable secondary source if we want to make some point about what the Bible is saying. --Srleffler (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think there's an implied claim being made: that the shroud might be genuine because the bible describes some shroud-like object being used in his burial. I'd prefer not to see that claim be implied. My guess is that there are secondary sources that mention this biblical context, and if not, I doubly question our decision to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think there is any doubt about Jesus having been wrapped in burial cloths. That seems to have been the typical burial practice in his culture at that time. It's an important piece of context for discussing the shroud, and it would be odd for the article not to reference the four best-known historical documents we have that mention Jesus' burial cloths. I don't see that passage as adding anything to the question of whether the shroud is genuine. Note also that the passage we are talking about is in the "Religious views" section, which is there to explain the religious context of the shroud.--Srleffler (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The implied claim misses the point of the issue with the shroud. Whether or not Jesus had a burial shroud doesn't change the fact that the shroud is dated to the medieval era and there is no verified evidence that links the shroud to jesus. Question169 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This topic is completely neglected although it is a significant detail to assess the Shroud's authenticity. All original Greek texts and all Bible translations of the gospel of John say that the body was bound in linen cloths (Greek: othonion) together with 75 lbs (32 kg) spices:

John 19:39-40 NRSVUE

39 Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of MYRRH(a) and ALOES(b), weighing about a hundred POUNDS(c).  40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it WITH THE SPICES in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews.

So, there must be at least non-biodegradable particles and stains of spices like it is claimed for blood. But there was/is EMPHASISED NOTHING. Excerpt of STURPs 1981 final report:

"... Microchemical evaluation has indicated NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SPICES, OILS, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death.

It is clear that there has been a DIRECT CONTACT OF THE SHROUD WITH A BODY, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood ..."

Source: The Shroud of Turin Website

(a) myrrh: Is an oily rubbery resin which is obtained from the solidified sap of myrrh shrub/tree (genus Commiphora). The resin is dissolvable in water and e.g. olive oil, can be powdered and has among others a spicy pleasant scent.

Source: www.die-bibel.de/ressourcen/wibilex

(b) aloes: Is either the resin which is obtained from the solidified sap of the eagle tree (Aquilaria agallocha) or in this case it is likely the evaporated extract from the fleshly leaves of Aloe vera or Aloe succotrina.

Source: www.die-bibel.de/ressourcen/wibilex

(c) 3046 lítra – a Roman pound, about twelve ounces or 327.5 grams (so Souter).

Source: BibleHub

2001:4BB8:262:E374:0:0:CB97:AD4 (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:That source is unreliable. besides that, it is totally unclear what you are trying to say. -Roxy the dog 08:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Seems strange that there is no trace of the oils and spices, and yet one guy claimed to have found all the various pollens etc from Palestine in large quantities. Please would somebody post the link to the "Final STURP report", so we can check this claim? Wdford (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agree, it is not easy to understand if the above is an argument for authenticity, or against it. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Of course the use of spices disprove the authenticity of the Shroud. How Joseph and Nicodemus applied such a quantity using something like the Shroud?

::This is only possible with linen bandages (Greek: othonion):

::"... bound in linen cloths/strips/bandages WITH THE SPICES ..."

::And now the circle closes when "sindón" in this context is translated as general material description "linen" or "linen cloth" by a significant number of Bible translations (see our discussion Religious views othonion/sindón).

::It is always claimed by Shroud defenders that "anointing" and "burial spicing" is the same. But according to the gospels' context this doesn't make sense, linguistically and logically. 2001:4BB8:262:E374:0:0:CB97:AD4 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::John 19:39

::: Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of MYRRH** and ALOES**, about seventy-five pounds [32 kg] in weight.

:::John 19:40

::: So they took the body of Jesus and bound [EDESAN] it in inen cloths [OTHONIOIS] with [META] the spices [AROMATON], as is the burial custom of the Jews.

:::So, the BURIAL SPICING (embalming) was CERTAINLY completed by Joseph and Nicodemus. After Sabbath the women intended to ANOINT Jesus. This is something completely different than the BURIAL SPICING. According to the New Testament an ANOINTING was done with oils/perfumes and it concerned mainly the head/hair/feet, as an act of honour.

:::Mark 16:1 English Standard Version

::: When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome ...

::: ... bought spices, so that they might go and ANOINT* him.

:::GREEK:

::: ... ēgorasan - arōmata - hina - elthousai - aleipsōsin* - auton.

:::LITERALLY TRANSLATED:

::: ... bought - spices - that - having come - they might anoint* - him.

:::

:::* Strong's Lexicon

::: aleipho: To anoint

::: Original Word: ἀλείφω

::: Part of Speech: Verb

::: Transliteration: aleipho

::: Pronunciation: ah-LAY-fo

::: Phonetic Spelling: (al-i'-fo)

::: Definition: To anoint

::: Meaning: I anoint: festivally, in homage, medicinally, or in anointing the dead.

:::Word Origin: From the Greek root word "aleipho," which is a primary verb.

:::Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: The Hebrew equivalent often associated with "aleipho" is מָשַׁח (mashach - Strong's Hebrew 4886), which also means to anoint.

:::Usage: The verb "aleipho" primarily means to anoint, TYPICALLY WITH OIL. In the New Testament, it is used in both literal and figurative contexts. Literally, it refers to the act of applying oil to a person or object, often for purposes of grooming, healing, or ceremonial consecration. Figuratively, it can imply setting apart or blessing someone for a specific purpose or task.

:::Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek and Jewish cultures, ANOINTING WITH OIL was a common practice. It was used for personal grooming, as a sign of hospitality, and for medicinal purposes. In religious contexts, anointing was a symbolic act of consecration, setting apart individuals for roles such as kingship or priesthood. The act of anointing was deeply embedded in the cultural and religious practices of the time, signifying honor, healing, and divine favor.

:::

:::* HELPS Word-studies

::: 218 aleíphō – properly, to rub or smear olive oil on the body. 218 (aleíphō) is the ordinary term used for physically anointing the body with (olive) oil. Anointing brought healing and relief and hence became synonymous with gladness (festivity).

:::["Anointing" (218 /aleíphō) usually applied olive oil on the face, to refresh a guest. Oil was also applied to the feet to soothe and show honor (courtesy, respect). Anointing shares a "penetrating comfort" to impart strength and healing (joy).]

:::2001:4BB8:262:E374:0:0:CB97:AD4 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I stated above that it was totally unclear what you wanted to say. It is still unclear. Roxy the dog 17:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I see your point, and it's a good one: the Bible records that myrrh and aloe were used when Jesus was wrapped in the burial cloths, but none have been detected on the shroud. What is needed before we can use this is a reference to a reliable source that makes the case. We can't use your argument (or any other) directly. We have to have a reliable source that we can cite as the source of this argument. That's how Wikipedia works. It doesn't express any opinion in its own voice, and it does not rely on original research by its writers. As an encyclopedia, we are a tertiary source: we rely on reliable secondary sources for our information and especially for opinions and arguments.

::::By the way, you don't help your case by posting big walls of text that are hard to read. It would also help if you didn't keep SHOUTING at us. You can emphasise words by putting two single quotes in front of and behind them: italics (italics). For strong emphasis three single quotes produces bold: bold (bold). Both of these are considered better form than USING words in ALL CAPS.--Srleffler (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Most Bible scholars grant the point that the information that Jesus did have a burial is accurate. I don't think though that they would grant the point that the information about oiling and spices is accurate. Well, except for very conservative Christians and fundamentalists. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not sure. It's probably relevant, though, that the myrrh and aloe are mentioned only in John, which I believe is the last of the four gospels to be written and the least biographical of the four.

::::::For the section on religious views of the Shroud, discrepancies between the shroud and the text of the Bible are relevant—It's perfectly valid for us to document the views of conservative Christians who may doubt the authenticity of the Shroud because of disagreements with the literal text of the Bible. We still need a reliable source that makes that case, of course.--Srleffler (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for your honest and constructive feedback.

:::::Excerpt of STURPs 1981 final report:

:::::"... Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death.

:::::It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood ..."

:::::The regarding source below is already cited on Wikipedia > STURP

:::::https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm 2001:4BB8:262:E374:0:0:CB97:AD4 (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Shroud.com likely doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a reliable source. We can only make limited use of it. Even if we could use it, it would establish only that STURP didn't find evidence of any spices or oils. The website doesn't make the case that lack of evidence of spices or oils is evidence against authenticity, so we can't use it to make that case. We would need a reliable source that makes that case. I hope this is clear: We can't make any argument or interpretation on our own. When Wikipedia presents an argument or an interpretation, it cites a source for that.

::::::This lack of evidence of myrrh and aloe in the shroud seems like something someone would have written about somewhere. I expect there is a source out there that we could use that discusses this. If someone finds such a source, we can include it in the article.--Srleffler (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::There is a controversy on this topic and I don't have the resources to find out which sources correspond Wikipedia criteria.

:::::::But there are two sources (GospelOfJohn and STURP) that already have been cited by Wikipedia and it would be sufficient to mention those "facts", not as evidence, but to create awareness for this topic.

:::::::I am a sceptic regarding AI but it's sometimes helpful to get first insights:

:::::::"...

:::::::The Shroud of Turin, a linen cloth said to bear the image of Jesus Christ, is often associated with spices, particularly myrrh and aloes, due to the biblical account of Jesus' burial. According to the Gospel of John, Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes (75 pounds) to be used in the preparation of Jesus' body before burial. The Shroud of Turin is believed by some to be the linen cloth in which Jesus' body was wrapped, and the presence of spices like myrrh and aloes could be a connection to the biblical account. However, scientific analysis of the Shroud has not found significant traces of these spices.

:::::::Here's a more detailed look:

:::::::• Biblical Account:

::::::: The Gospel of John describes how Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes (about 75 pounds) to be used in preparing Jesus' body for burial. This was done in accordance with Jewish burial customs.

:::::::• Scientific Analysis:

::::::: While the Shroud of Turin is often associated with spices, scientific analysis has not found definitive traces of myrrh or aloes.

:::::::• Possible Explanations:

::::::: Some suggest that the spices may have been applied to the linen cloth, but the traces have been degraded over time or are not easily detectable by current scientific methods.

:::::::• Alternative Theories:

::::::: Some researchers suggest that the Shroud may not be the actual burial cloth of Jesus, and the presence of spices is not supported by scientific evidence.

:::::::• The Sudarium of Oviedo:

::::::: The Sudarium of Oviedo, another piece of cloth associated with Jesus, has also been found to contain traces of aloes and myrrh, which some researchers believe further supports the authenticity of both cloths.

:::::::..."

:::::::--- Google AI Search result for "Shroud of Turin spices" 2001:4BB8:262:E1A8:0:0:CCEF:6149 (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Wikipedia has zero interest in what "Google AI Search results" show. Theroadislong (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::AI is pushed in all areas of our life. I don't like this development but I have to cope with that and consequently I have to make the best of it. And if Wikipedia will not do the same they will lose. Everybody want's to have up to date info. And that's not the case for the Shroud of Turin. Up to yesterday I was of the opinion that the content is the same in all languages. A view on the German article (my mother tongue) proved me wrong, when comparing e.g. Religious Views. 2001:4BB8:262:E1A8:0:0:CCEF:6149 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|And if Wikipedia will not do the same they will lose}} Wrong. AI is useless for generating reliable text at the moment, as it invents sources, falls for false balance, and sucks up to its user by falling for suggestive questions. "The best of it" is not using it here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::"... generating reliable text ..."

:::::::::::I thought up to this time that Wikipedia is reliable. But it isn't. Check my next claim regarding Religious Views > first picture. 2001:4BB8:26D:65CC:0:0:CA0F:3B06 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::AI generated text is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is not up for debate. Question169 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

"Artistic depiction of the Shroud of Turin, incorporated into a scene of the Descent from the Cross, by painter Giulio Clovio, c. 1540. Clovio shows Jesus's right hand crossed over the left, which is not consistent with the image on the Shroud.[45]"

In my opinion the painting is from Giovanni Battista Della Rovere. And the picture itself is contradicting comparing hand positioning of the wrapping scenery and the depiction above (after resurrection).

Apart from this on this painting the body is going to be wrapped together with a loincloth. This is not visible on the Shroud of Turin.

2001:4BB8:262:E1A8:0:0:CCEF:6149 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia follows WP:RS. Of course, there is always a chance that WP:RS could be wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::The problem is not being wrong - it's the ignorance to clarify/correct it. 2001:4BB8:26D:64B2:0:0:CA5E:5F3A (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We do that, but only if the thing is actually wrong, not just when some random person claims it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

: {{tq|In my opinion}}. I believe you should read WP:OR, as it can help you to understand why what you term "ignorance" is actually something else, something quite different, namely adherence to Wikipedia's policies, including the reliable sourcing policy for determining what content is, or is not, included in articles. Our "opinions" are irrelevant, per policy. You, me, and all other editors are required to explicitly support their desired content with reliable sources. In this particular case, if you can demonstrate, through reliable sources, that a cited source is wrong/unclear/poor/inappropriate/whatever, then of course the content can be changed. But you have to make that argument with reliable sources, and not simply your opinion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Then walk the talk. There is no citation that the painting is certainly by Clovio. The following references are simply too less:

::https://archive.org/details/shroudofchrist0000vign/page/21/mode/1up

::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OntstaanLijkwade_GiovanniBattista.png 2001:4BB8:26D:64B2:0:0:CA5E:5F3A (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There is a citation under the Wikipedia image which you are referencing. You are either dishonest or you didn't bother to read the article . Question169 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I have checked the article of Paul Vignon but obviousely you didn't:

::::There is the picture of the painting on the first pages but there is only the claim that by Clovio - no reference or source.

::::The same some pages later when he listed "Plates" - no reference or source (museum, owner, etc.)

::::For me it doesn't matter whether the painting is from Clovio or Della Rovere - the Shroud is an unbiblical hoax anyway.

::::But I know that for Wikipedia a book from 1902 of a French scientist is reliable and the Bible not.

::::John 19:39-40

::::39 Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. 40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews.

::::(BibleGateway; NRSVUE)

::::Excerpt of STURPs 1981 final report:

::::"... Microchemical evaluation has indicated NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SPICES, OILS, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death.

::::It is clear that there has been a DIRECT CONTACT OF THE SHROUD WITH A BODY, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood ..."

::::(https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm) 2001:4BB8:26D:64B2:0:0:CA5E:5F3A (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I already took a look at the source and I fail to see the issue. Can you explain the issue? The source is crystal clear in saying that the painting is made by Clovio. You yourself have yet to provide any semblance of reliable sources. And before you comment shroud.com is not a reliable source. The claim that the shroud was in contact with a body is not supported by any reliable sources. Question169 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::"Yes, I have checked the article of Paul Vignon but obviously you didn't:"

:::::It's obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. The article is actually a book, the book itself is the source. I recommend you educate yourself on how sources work before wasting everyone's time. Question169 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::"But I know that for Wikipedia a book from 1902 of a French scientist is reliable and the Bible not."

:::::First of all, how is the Bible related to the book that is being cited?

:::::Secondly, the bible is reliable only when it is talking about itself. Anything else is unreliable. You need a secondary source to support whatever point you are making. Question169 (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Walk the talk: Why there is no secondary quote that the painting was done by Clovio? 2001:4BB8:26D:64B2:0:0:CA5E:5F3A (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::What do you mean by secondary quote? Question169 (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Are you a kid? You wrote that a secondary source (quote) is needed. Where is it regarding the painting in question? 2001:4BB8:26D:64B2:0:0:CA5E:5F3A (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::WP:SECONDARY. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong but is the book a secondary source or primary source, would the primary source be the historical reference itself? Question169 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::A WP:PRIMARY source would be something written by Clovio, or a photo of his signature. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Explicitly, since comprehension seems to be an issue here: the book is a secondary source.--Srleffler (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::In addition you have yet to provide any reliable sources for your claim nor have you explained what is wrong with the current source. Question169 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)