Saturday, July 14, 2012

Old blood does not always degenerate to type AB, so the Shroud of Turin's and the Sudarium of Oviedo's AB blood group is significant!

I am reposting this excerpt from my "Shroud of Turin News for February 2012," because I have been asked a comment about the topic under my old, superseded post, "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear." The commenter may not have been able to find, using a search engine, my update under the uninformative title of "Shroud of Turin News."

My comments are bold to distinguish them from the article.


"King Tut's Dad's Toe Returns Home," Rossella Lorenzi, Discovery

[Right: Mummified remains of a toe of Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaton (c.1353-1336 BC): National Geographic]

News, April 15, 2010 ... A toe belonging to King Tutankhamun's father has been finally returned to Egypt, the Supreme Council of Antiquities said on Wednesday. The bone piece belonged to mummy KV55, which was identified as Akhenaton during a recent major genetic investigation into King Tut's family. The son of Amenhotep III and also the father of Tutankhamun, Akhenaton, (1353-1336 B.C.) is known as the "heretic" pharaoh who introduced a monotheistic religion by overthrowing the pantheon of the gods to worship the sun god Aton. The terminal phalanx of his great toe, probably from the left foot, was taken away in 1968, when the Department of Antiquities in Cairo, under the supervision of the then director, handed it over to the late Professor Ronald Harrison of Liverpool University. "Since then, the specimen has been held securely in my laboratory, but I decided it had to `go home,' particularly since very few people knew where it was," Robert Connolly senior lecturer in physical anthropology from the University of Liverpool's Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, told Discovery News. Connolly, who authored several scientific papers with Harrison, used the specimen to determine the blood-group of KV55, then believed to be Smenkharel, an ancient Egyptian pharaoh of the late 18th Dynasty. "The remains appeared to be A2 with the antigens M and N present. This was identical to the blood group of Tutankhamun," Connolly said. ... I am posting this 2010 news item here on my Shroud news for February 2012, because of its importance, and it is the first I became aware of it. I was alerted by a commenter bippy123 to my blog post, "Re: Shroud blood ... types as AB ... aged blood always types as AB, so the significance of this ... is unclear" that King Tutankhamun's blood type was A2. The significance of this for the Shroud is that its blood type (and that of the Sudarium of Oviedo) is AB:

"The most striking thing about all the stains is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud. The first fact that confirms the relationship between the two cloths is that the blood on each belongs to the same group, AB. If the blood or each cloth belonged to a different group, there would be no sense in pursuing the comparative investigation, and little meaning in any further points of coincidence. This test is the starting point for all the others, and the results are positive. Blood of the group AB is also very common in the Middle East and rare in Europe." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, p.27).

But previously it had been stated that there was "a tendency among blood samples more than several centuries old always to test AB":

"In fact, quite independently of Drs Heller and Adler, other findings have served to confirm that what appears to be blood genuinely is blood. For instance the Italian pathologist Dr Pier Luigi Baima-Bollone, who has carried out thousands of autopsies, and who has had more Shroud `blood' sample than was accorded to Dr Adler, has not only confirmed it to be blood, but confidently identified it as of the AB group. [Baima-Bollone, P., Jorio, M. & Massaro, A.L., "Identification of the Group of the Traces of Human Blood on the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue 6, March 1983, pp.3-6] Although this group is comparatively rare among Europeans and is found in only 3.2 per cent of the world's population as a whole, its incidence is 18 per cent among Jewish populations of the present-day Near East. [Garza-Vald├Ęs, L., "The DNA of God?," Doubleday: New York, 1999, p.39] Caution is needed, however, since some researchers have noted a tendency among blood samples more than several centuries old always to test AB." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.77).

But clearly since Akhenaton's (and his family's) blood type has been determined to be A2, a variant of type A, which is different from type AB, and they lived ~1,500 years before Jesus, making them now thirty four centuries old, then there is good reason to believe (and it certainly cannot now be ruled out) that both the Shroud and the Sudarium's blood was originally type AB, which in turn increases the likelihood that the blood on them came from the same Jewish individual, namely Jesus Christ! As I responded to bippy123's comment:

"While not a scientific journal, I regard this Discovery News science news report as sufficiently authoritative, especially as it quoted Dr. Connolly's words: `The remains appeared to be A2 with the antigens M and N present,' to establish that old blood does not necessarily degrade to AB. Especially bearing in mind that at 14th century BC King Akhenaton's ... remains are much older than the Shroud's presumed 1st century AD. Which means both the Shroud's and the Sudarium of Oviedo's blood group being AB is significant and cannot just be set aside by the claim that old blood always degrades to type AB."

See also "Another Tutankhamen puzzle," Research Intelligence, University of Liverpool, Issue 24, May 2005 and "King Tut's Mom and Dad ID'ed," LiveScience, 16 February 2010. The lead paper in the major genetic investigation of Tutankhamun's family is: Hawass, Z., et al., "Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family," JAMA, February 17, 2010, Vol. 303, No. 7, pp.638-647. I will get a copy of those papers in the investigation which mention the A2 blood group.


Stephen E. Jones, B.Sc., Grad. Dip. Ed.
My other blogs: Jesus is Jehovah! & CreationEvolutionDesign (inactive)

15 comments:

Matt said...

That's interesting Stephen.
Off topic, but tenuously linked via the issue of "blood"....
It's interesting to me that almost all art of Jesus shows his side wound on his right side.
However the frontal image of Jesus on the Shroud, shows the side wound on his left. Of course, what appears to be his left side is actually his right side because what we see is the "negative".

One would think that if it was an "Artwork" then the artist would have tried to show the wound on Jesus's right side as we view the "negative", just as an artist would have wanted to show two hand wounds, and just as an artist would have wanted to show a loin cloth.

Just a thought.

Your thoughts?

MATT

Flagrum3 said...

Matt; Actually we do see the side wound on the right side, you must remember we are viewing the side of the cloth which was actually in contact with the body. So we see it from the bodies perspective, not because it is a negative. But still I think you are correct in that if done by an artist it would make more sense he showed the wound from an observer's perspective.

F3

bippy123 said...

Guys I just found more information to debunk the assertion that ancient blood turns into Type AB. It is an abstract from a publication . Im trying to find the whole research paper but it probably has to be purchased.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/677292

ABO blood groups in Chilean and Peruvian mummies. II. Results of agglutination-inhibition technique.
Allison MJ, Hossaini AA, Munizaga J, Fung R.
Abstract
ABO blood groups of Peruvian and Chilean mummies were determined with the agglutination-inhibition method. In Peru all ABO blood groups were found in the period from 3000 B.C. to 1400 A.D. ; PMID:677292[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

There was also another study by a paleantologist named Boyd who had studied egyptian mummies who also found all the abo blood types. I originally found the information on the peruvian mummies on another website in which phoenician words were found at these mummies sites. I wont include the other site link because it has racist undertones in it. I know the phoenicians lived right on the border of modern day Israel because they are my ancestors and they also possessed the type ab blood type in a certain percentage of their population. This is signifigant is that they found all abo blood types in these ancient mummies (type A, B, AB and O) which destroys the theory that ancient blood degrades to type AB.

Flagrum3 said...

Nice find bippy! ...I think it is pretty safe at this point to confidently say; All blood types will NOT degrade to AB over time. Furthermore, it shows most definately that AB was NOT a recently developed blood type, but an ancient type. This new evidence also, I believe, strengthens the link between the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo, as in both being used on the same crucifixion victim.

F3

bippy123 said...

Thanks, Flagrum :)
You are correct, This leaves almost no wiggle room for skeptics to use it as a vague claim against the blood found on the shroud.

"Furthermore, it shows most definately that AB was NOT a recently developed blood type, but an ancient type. This new evidence also, I believe, strengthens the link between the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo, as in both being used on the same crucifixion victim."

Yes the signifigance of this now cant be overlooked on this. Im not sure why there isnt more information online about how ancient AB blood really is, its perplexing that I had to look all over the net to find this.

I have been following your posts on youtube for a while. I seriously dont know how you put up with the ignorance of the skeptic posts on youtube against the shroud. It would have driven me crazy lol.
God bless

Flagrum3 said...

Bippy123; "I seriously don't know how you put up with the ignorance of the skeptic posts on Youtube against the Shroud. It would have driven me crazy lol."

Well thanks, the answer is easy; I'm already crazy! lol just joking. I don't know actually why I insist in trying to teach these skeptics but some of the credit goes to Stephen in that he pointed out certain scripture to me;

2Tim 2:24-25.24 And the Lord's servant must not be querralsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth.

Now I can't say I've been too gentle or even been kind in some cases but I try my best ;-)

F3

Stephen E. Jones said...

I have received from Blogger today a "Comment Rejected" web page notice on my browser:

----------------------------------
Comment Rejected

Comment on your post "Old blood does not always degenerate to type AB, so the Shroud of Turin's and the Sudarium of Oviedo's AB blood group is significant!" has been rejected.

Go to the comments moderation page.
----------------------------------

I cannot remember rejecting a comment today, so it could have been a comment that I accidentally hit "Delete" instead of "Publish." Going to the "comments moderation page" does not show comments rejected.

It is a pity Blogger does not have at least one line of a comment that has been rejected. It sends an email of all comments received, even those not published, so from the first line I could work out which commment it was that I inadvertently deleted and republish it.

I usually publish comments immediately, but it could have been an older comment that I had missed and just caught up with in my Inbox.

So if a commenter thinks one of his/her comments has not appeared under this post when it should have by now, then please post it again.

My apologies.

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.

Flagrum3 said...

Hi Stephen,

Just to let you know, Dan recently posted a notification of a live radio interview with Barrie Schwortz on DrJohnradio Saturday night July 21st. If anyone missed it they can download the interview from drJohnradio.com. Anyways during the interview Barrie mentioned that Kelly Kearse (whom I'm sure you are familiar with), had just finalized a paper on the issues of the blood and it may deal partially with the blood reverting to AB issue. Apparently it will be posted on shroud.com in the next update in late August!

F3

Stephen E. Jones said...

Matt

>It's interesting to me that almost all art of Jesus shows his side wound on his right side.

I take your word that "almost all art of Jesus shows his side wound on his right side."

But if it does, then it is corect. The side wound was in Jesus' right side.

Remember that Jesus' image on the Shroud is like a mirror image with left and right reversed (i.e. laterally inverted).

If you look at ShroudScope "Durante 2002 Vertical," the side wound appears to be on Jesus' left side.

But if you print that image off and then hold it above you, to simulate the Shroud being over Jesus' body, then you will see that the wound was in Jesus' right side.

>However the frontal image of Jesus on the Shroud, shows the side wound on his left.

Agreed. But the Shroud image is not actually Jesus' body. It is a a mirror image imprint of Jesus' body, with left and right inverted.

>Of course, what appears to be his left side is actually his right side because what we see is the "negative".

This can lead to more confusion. The bloodstains are not "negative" in the same sense that the Shroud image is. The image is analogous to a photograph, but the bloodstains were by direct contact.

It would be more accurate to say that both the bloodstains and the iange are imprints of Jesus' body (albeit by different processes), and as such they are laterally inverted, the same way a plaster cast would be.

>One would think that if it was an "Artwork" then the artist would have tried to show the wound on Jesus's right side as we view the "negative", just as an artist would have wanted to show two hand wounds, and just as an artist would have wanted to show a loin cloth.

I take it that you are saying that the artists should have depicted Jesus' side wound in His left side?

But that would only be so if the artists were trying to depict the Shroud. The wound actually was in Jesus' right side.

And in fact, looking at Dan Porter's "What are some of the famous painted copies of the Shroud?" all five copies show the side wound in Jesus' left side.

But they were copying the Shroud, not painting Jesus.

>Just a thought.
>
>Your thoughts?

Those artists who were painting Jesus (not Jesus' image on the Shroud), were correct if they showed Jesus side wound from the Roman lance:

John 19:34. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

If it is so that "almost all art of Jesus shows his side wound on his right side" I wonder where they got their information on what side it was? The gospels do not say the lance would was in Jesus' right side.

It would seem more logical that the Roman soldier thrust his spear into Jesus' left side, because that is the side nearest the heart, and one would have thought that most artists depicting Jesus' death on the Cross, would show the lance wound in Jesus' left side.

Maybe they got their information from the Shroud, realising that the Shroud image is a left-right inversion?

Significantly, the Pray Manuscript artist in Berkovits' Plate IV, correctly shows the side wound in Jesus' right side!

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

Flagrum3

>Matt; Actually we do see the side wound on the right side, you must remember we are viewing the side of the cloth which was actually in contact with the body.

Agreed.

>So we see it from the bodies perspective, not because it is a negative.

Agreed. The bloodstains are not "negative" as the image is. If you look at ShroudScope's "Durante 2002" photos, you can see that the bloodstains are dark, as they really are.

>But still I think you are correct in that if done by an artist it would make more sense he showed the wound from an observer's perspective.

That would only be if the artists were trying to depict the image on the Shroud. Then they should show the side-wound on Jesus' left, because that is how it is on the Shroud.

But if the artists were trying to depict Jesus Himself, either dead on the Cross or Resurected with "Those wounds, yet visible above, in beauty glorified:

----------------------------------
Crown Him the Lord of love, behold His hands and side,
Those wounds, yet visible above, in beauty glorified.
No angel in the sky can fully bear that sight,
But downward bends his burning eye at mysteries so bright.
----------------------------------

then they would be correct in showing Jesus with the lance wound in His right side, because that is where it is.

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

bippy123

>Guys I just found more information to debunk the assertion that ancient blood turns into Type AB. It is an abstract from a publication ... ABO blood groups in Chilean and Peruvian mummies ... Allison MJ ... Abstract ABO blood groups of Peruvian and Chilean mummies were determined ... In Peru all ABO blood groups were found in the period from 3000 B.C. to 1400 ...

Thanks for this. Following your tip I also found a 1976 study by the same authors which specifically mentions the AB blood group as having been in America before known European contact:

----------------------------------
"ABO blood groups in Peruvian mummies. I. An evaluation of techniques"† Marvin J. Allison 1,*, Ali A. Hossaini 1, Nora Castro 1, Juan Munizaga 2, Alejandro Pezzia 3 Article first published online: 3 MAY 2005 ... American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 44, Issue 1, pages 55–61, January 1976 ... Abstract. Blood groups of Peruvian mummies of known origin were determined by three different methods: agglutination-inhibition, induction of antibody production and mixed cell agglutination. The three techniques gave identical results, but the last two were useful in establishing the presence of H (O) antigen, while the first technique would not. The results indicate the presence of A, B, AB and O blood groups in America prior to known European contact. This suggests the need for a revision of concepts of blood groups in the American Indian.
----------------------------------

This disproves Freeman's factoid that:

"the ... AB group ... is virtually unknown before AD 900," which he stated in his "The Shroud of Turin and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey".

I countered this in another way in "My critique of Charles Freeman's `The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey,' part 3B: `The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo'"

But I will now insert this new information on the presence of AB blood group in pre-European Peruvian Indians into my critique of Freeman's paper.

>There was also another study by a paleantologist named Boyd who had studied egyptian mummies who also found all the abo blood types. ... This is signifigant is that they found all abo blood types in these ancient mummies (type A, B, AB and O) which destroys the theory that ancient blood degrades to type AB.

Agreed.

Thanks again.

Stephen E. Jones

Flagrum3 said...

Hi Stephen,

When I stated that Matt may be correct in that it makes more sense an artist would depict the wound from the observer's point of view. I meant the artist would be depicting the wound on the left as the observer views it {Right side on the body}; Typical of most artist depictions as in the Pray codex and most all renditions. Basically this is simply another point to the Shroud NOT being an artist rendition, being the side wound is seen on the right {left on the body}, from the viewers perspective.

Here is another tid-bit of info I picked up in my readings to the mention of 'a logical side a Roman soldier would inflict the wound'; Roman soldiers were taught and trained to thrust their lance or sword under the opponents right arm pit as most opponents would be carrying a sheild on their left arm...So maybe some logic to the side-wound being on the right side. Alas one needs to still wonder how early artists knew this since it is not mentioned in scripture.

F3

Stephen E. Jones said...

Flagrum3

>Nice find bippy! ...I think it is pretty safe at this point to confidently say; All blood types will NOT degrade to AB over time.

Agreed.

>Furthermore, it shows most definately that AB was NOT a recently developed blood type, but an ancient type.

Yes. I have now included in my post, My critique of Charles Freeman's "The Turin Shroud and the Image of Edessa: A Misguided Journey," part 3B: "The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo", the following:

-----------------------------------
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1978 Jul;49(1):139-42. ABO blood groups in Chilean and Peruvian mummies. II. Results of agglutination-inhibition technique. Allison MJ, Hossaini AA, Munizaga J, Fung R. Abstract ABO blood groups of Peruvian and Chilean mummies were determined with the agglutination-inhibition method. In Peru all ABO blood groups were found in the period from 3000 B.C. to 1400 A.D.; from this period to 1650 only A and O were seen. In Chile no B or AB was noted either in pre-Columbian or Colonial mummies. This confirms the archeological concept that the Chilean Indian was culturally as well as genetically different from the Peruvian Indian. Further studies using other genetic markers are in order, as well as changing certain preconceived notions on blood groups of American Indians.
-----------------------------------

and:

-----------------------------------
ABO blood groups in Peruvian mummies. I. An evaluation of techniques† Marvin J. Allison 1,*, Ali A. Hossaini 1, Nora Castro 1, Juan Munizaga 2, Alejandro Pezzia 3 ... American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 44, Issue 1, pages 55-61, January 1976 ... Abstract Blood groups of Peruvian mummies of known origin were determined by three different methods: agglutination-inhibition, induction of antibody production and mixed cell agglutination. The three techniques gave identical results, but the last two were useful in establishing the presence of H (O) antigen, while the first technique would not. The results indicate the presence of A, B, AB and O blood groups in America prior to known European contact. This suggests the need for a revision of concepts of blood groups in the American Indian.
-----------------------------------

>This new evidence also, I believe, strengthens the link between the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo, as in both being used on the same crucifixion victim.

Agreed. See my latest post on the Sudarium mentioned above.

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.

Stephen E. Jones said...

bippy123

>Thanks, Flagrum :)
You are correct, This leaves almost no wiggle room for skeptics to use it as a vague claim against the blood found on the shroud.

Agreed. Freeman may be the last to claim it. This is a genuine advance in sindonology and it happened here on this blog, thanks to you bippy123.

>>"Furthermore, it shows most definately that AB was NOT a recently developed blood type, but an ancient type. This new evidence also, I believe, strengthens the link between the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo, as in both being used on the same crucifixion victim."

>Yes the signifigance of this now cant be overlooked on this. Im not sure why there isnt more information online about how ancient AB blood really is, its perplexing that I had to look all over the net to find this.

It's probably not a major issue in anthropology or genetics.

>I have been following your posts on youtube for a while. I seriously dont know how you put up with the ignorance of the skeptic posts on youtube against the shroud. It would have driven me crazy lol.
God bless

Congratulations to Flagrum3 on his Flagrum3's channel! I have not watched it yet, but I will.

Stephen E. Jones

Flagrum3 said...

Haha thanks Stephen but it's just a youtube page. I think everyone gets one and I haven't actually done anything with it,..yet. It's not like having your own Blog. Anyways all you'll see is various comments I've made on youtube videos. It's also a place I can get some frustration out on ignoramace new athiests who try to dispell the Shroud as genuine.

I prefer to spent most of my time reading books and your excellent blog.

F3