The paper is certainly interesting. I was not aware of Knight's results with the Copiale Cipher: that is a great confirmation of the usefulness of software tools, when used with competence, intelligence and hard "manual" work.
I am sorry I am so completely ignorant of Hebrew that I cannot properly evaluate the results of Hauer and Kondrak. My naive impression is that anagram+abjad would be mostly impossible to decipher, but I may very well be wrong. Also, it's a pity that they didn't comment on phenomena like EVA:p/f only occurring at the beginning of paragraphs (see Davidsch's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), or the behaviour of the EVA:o- prefix after EVA:-in (as discussed by You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) or EVA:o- in labels vs plain-text.
A minor error in the paper is that they used the "Bibbia di Gerusalemme" as a source for ancient Italian, while this text was written in the XX Century.
I am sorry I am so completely ignorant of Hebrew that I cannot properly evaluate the results of Hauer and Kondrak. My naive impression is that anagram+abjad would be mostly impossible to decipher, but I may very well be wrong. Also, it's a pity that they didn't comment on phenomena like EVA:p/f only occurring at the beginning of paragraphs (see Davidsch's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), or the behaviour of the EVA:o- prefix after EVA:-in (as discussed by You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.) or EVA:o- in labels vs plain-text.
A minor error in the paper is that they used the "Bibbia di Gerusalemme" as a source for ancient Italian, while this text was written in the XX Century.


![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)