So now that Avery has made his conspiracy theory regarding Sinaiticus testing well known here, does his
expert Dr. Ira Rabin from BAM - whom he invokes several times above - agree with him on the matter? Would he defer to her expertise? Here's what she had to say:
To which Avery replied with:
"Very interesting. One possible motive, and I highlight possible, would be discomfit if the tests showed some surprising things. Even if they showed that the ms. was ancient, but not fourth century. The groups caught on in the last year that the parchment condition was an issue, especially since there was some correspondence with the Brits. On a totally unrelated field, some skeptics asked for C-14 dating on a web
petitions. (About which I am skeptical .) So they might have just decided, let's not take any risks, let's not rock the boat. Science can wait."
Dr. Rabin rejoins:
So what do any of you honestly think Avery would say, were he to find an expert on Arabic to write and tell him what he doesn't want to hear about the Arabic notes in Sinaiticus?
Despite what Timothy Arthur Brown told him about the images and coloring, Avery persists with the same uninformed lies.
Despite what Dr. Rabin told him about the testing and her own view on Sinaiticus authenticity, Avery persists with the same uninformed lies.
Ditto for McGrane, Hixson, and others.
Expertise is ignored.
No matter what expert is consulted on any issue surrounding Sinaiticus, Avery defers to no one but himself. EVER.