philosophical question about Voynich research

[ReneZ]

There is more to the mystery of the Voynich MS than "what the text says".

Let's just suppose for a moment that it contains several standard texts, e.g. from Aristotle and some early herbal texts.
Does that then solve everything?

I would say: hardly. Because we still don't know why this was done, and we may not know who did it, where and when?
What was the motivation? Were there more such works?

If it turns out to be an otherwise unknown classical text, it will trigger some serious research.

If it turns out to be some sort of a treasure map, it will trigger something very different  

If it includes new historic evidence related to people or events (not excluding gossip) it will trigger more serious research.

I could go on for quite a while with all sorts of more or less unlikely scenarios.

If it turns out to overlap with the work of Paracelsus (as Singer seems to have thought), does it mean that Paracelsus was heavily influenced by it? Could he read it?