Text and context

[ReneZ]

As an academic I studied the Dead Sea Scrolls for 20+ years. From that experience I am wary of putting absolute faith ("scientism") in carbon dating, and even more wary of palaeography (which in the case of the Scrolls was a circus.) These are tools, and relatively blunt tools for all of that. I don't feel straightjacketed by them or intimidated by forensics. I'm looking at a 1450s scenario. The carbon dating terminus is 1438. On a small sample from a 600 year old document, I don't regard a leeway of a dozen years fatal to my argument. 

I am sorry but that is also demonstrably wrong. In some parts of the historical timeline the C-14 method is quite accurate, and in others it is highly inaccurate. This has to do with the exact shape of the calibration curve coming from tree ring analysis.
If an estimate for biblical times is inaccurate, this says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of the early 15th century.
Even the accaracy in the later 15th century is very low.

Effectively, for the Voynich MS, if one increases the error margins on the measurements by a factor 2 or 3, the upper limit hardly moves. The lower limit can go back to the 14th century.

I am aware that this is only clear if one has a deeper understanding of the way how C-14 results are obtained.
I can only refer back to my web page for that.

In summary: if the C-14 dating error margins have been overly optimistic, this could make the MS older rather than younger.