Talk:Shroud of Turin#Terminology

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)

This article requires significant revision based on a recent review of the literature. When examining the latest research on the Shroud of Turin, it seems almost as if we're discussing an entirely different artifact. Consider just two examples:

• "The majority of the scientists agree that the body image is not a painting and that the bloodstains are made of blood." Karapanagiotis, Ioannis. 2025. "The Shroud of Turin: An Overview of the Archaeological Scientific Studies" Textiles 5, no. 1: 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/textiles501000
• "From a statistical viewpoint, the parametric and nonparametric analyses of raw data, which either involve assuming a known distribution (parametric) or do not make any assumptions (nonparametric), strongly suggested that the number of carbon 14 atoms significantly differed among the results of different laboratories and even within the Tucson laboratory. Furthermore, the statistical analysis supported the hypothesis of the presence of a spatial trend among the radiocarbon dates. This probable linear trend along the length of the cloth explains the reduction in the pertinence of the 1989 results: The radiocarbon dates seem to be dependent on the parts of the Shroud from which samples were taken. This suggests the presence of a systematic flaw that makes the mathematical calculation of the calendar interval absurd. The probable causes of this spatial trend, including non-mutually exclusive explanations, such as invisible reweaving during the French Renaissance or differences in cleaning procedures, remain under speculation." Casabianca, Tristan. 2024. “Systematic Evaluation of Recent Research on the Shroud of Turin.” Theology and Science 23 (1): 72–88. https://doi:10.1080/14746700.2024.2436781.

Many references in those articles should be included, and the numerous unreliable sources and blog posts (!) should be deleted. 80.124.99.238 (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Both your links above are faulty. I have also reverted your bold addition per WP:BRD as you have not gained consensus to include it. - Roxy the dog 08:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Srleffler and I have had a back-and-forth over whether "Jesus's" ought to be linked "Jesus's" or "Jesus's" in the first paragraph. Srleffler seems to prefer the latter on purely aesthetic grounds, even though it’s not common practice. What do other editors think? Keeper of Albion (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:Nobody needs a link to Jesus. People tend to know who he was, don't they? - Roxy the dog 14:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::A reader looking at this article might want to jump to the article on Jesus. An article on an artifact associated with a historical person should have a link to that person's article, even if they are so famous that everyone is familiar with them. --Srleffler (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:If we need a link to Jesus right there, Jesus's is appropriate per H:WIKILINK. We could also link earlier by changing "traditional depictions of Jesus of Nazareth after ..." to "traditional depictions of Jesus of Nazareth after ...". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it is a common practice, and that in most cases when someone makes a link like Jesus's it's because they are being careless or don't know that "'s" doesn't get pulled into the link the way "s" does. The last time I saw a discussion about this the consensus was that both ways are fine and editors should not switch text from one to the other form.--Srleffler (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::H:WIKILINK is not a policy or guideline and states at the top that it "may reflect varying levels of consensus." The preference for 's outside the link was inserted without discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Link&diff=next&oldid=1040810769 in 2021]. Previously the page described the effect of the markup without implying that leaving the 's outside the link was "the right thing" to do.--Srleffler (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::MOS:LINKCLARITY should also be kept in mind:

:::"The article linked to should correspond as closely as possible to the term showing as the link, given the context."

:::This would seem to suggest that "Jesus's" is preferred, and the examples provided both there and one section below at MOS:SPECIFICLINK would suggest that "Jesus's" might unnecessarily lead a reader to believe that the link is taking them to an article about Jesus's real historical burial shroud, something also not unlikely given how many articles relating to Jesus and Christianity the English Wikipedia hosts. Keeper of Albion (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Also a good point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)