geoffreycaveney's Judaeo-Greek theory

[MarcoP]

Hi Geoffrey,
if I understand correctly, you are saying that it is not necessary to by an academic scholar to study the Voynich manuscript. I agree, of course: this is an internet forum where amateurs discuss their ideas. Between the two extremes of delegating all research to academical scholars and totally ignoring the work of others there is the middle way of studying what scholars and other amateurs have done and try to build upon it.

This is not the first time you compare your research with Michael Ventris' work, but there are major differences.

A first difference (that I previously pointed out) is Ventris' careful quantitative analysis of the unknown language he was studying. This is something I don't see in your research: not only you do not add to the objective observations that others have produced about Voynichese, but your theory does not try to explain any of the available evidence. For instance: the low entropy, the fact that EVA:p and f mostly occur in the first lines of paragraphs, Grove words, Currier A and B, the frequent reduplication and quasi-reduplication of words...

A second difference is that Ventris built on the work of others, while you ignore both scholarly Yavanic research and everything others have pointed out about the VMS. 
In 1940 (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., published when he was 18) Ventris was already familiar with the work of several academic researchers, such as Robert S. Conway, Arthur E. Cowley and (obviously) Arthur Evans. He wrote:

The enormous obstacles that stand in the way of decipherment, and the general lack of data, have led, on the part of more serious students, to considerable prudence and reserve: but equally, to a great variety of bizarre and ill-founded conjectures from the more amateur.
[...]
I do not propose to offer here any broad "translations" of the inscriptions. All I want to do, within this short space, is briefly review the evidence and see what lines of approach it suggests.
[...]
The real and valuable work on the Minoan inscriptions has so far consisted almost entirely of research into the method rather than the meaning. A great deal of labor has gone into classifying the signs and tracing their varying forms throughout the successive systems, in sorting out the records according to certain recurrent ideographs, and in the detection of that large element consisting of proper names. All this we owe to the untiring energy of Sir Arthur Evans. No further progress would be possible without it.

For more than ten years, Ventris built on the evidence collected and analyzed by Evans and later Kober and Bennett. Since 1941, he corresponded with Sir John Myres (who was publishing the Linear B tablets of Knossos). You write that "at a certain stage ... Ventris had to obtain the critical assistance and close cooperation of John Chadwick, a professional scholar and specialist in archaic Greek." You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. says that:

Ventris had been invited to give a talk on the BBC Third Programme about Myres’s publication of the Knossos tablets. He took the opportunity to announce his decipherment and it was broadcast to the world on 1 July 1952. The talk was heard by John Chadwick, a newly-appointed lecturer in the Faculty of Classics at Cambridge, who, after getting a copy of Ventris’ material from Myres, was the first to write to him with congratulations, offering his help “if there is anything a mere philologist can do”.

As amateurs, we can still do our best to work as "serious students": creating "bizarre and ill-founded conjectures" is not the only option. If we are serious and persistent enough, we might one day have a chance to collaborate with academic researchers. There actually are Voynichese amateurs that have been as successful as that: it is not an impossible goal.