The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[ReneZ]

The "Voynich faked it" theory has evolved over time, and at present, in essence, it says [with some comments in square brackets]:

The Voynich MS was intended to represent a herbal written by Jacobus de Tepenec, around the year 1600.
[Sorry, who???? And someone used valuable old parchment to fake a document that would with certainty have been written on paper??]

It was then changed, in order to make it more valuable, into an autograph by Roger Bacon, of the 13th century. To do this, some pages with incompatible material were removed.
[Though, inexplicably, the armadillo, acceptable for Tepenec but not Bacon, was overlooked].

Following is all my comment.
As a result of this erratic behaviour, the book cannot be distinguished, even using all modern forensic testing, from a late medieval manuscript, with parchment from the start of the 15th century, clothing from the early 15th century, a 15th century zodiac.

So that's the hypothesis. In order to believe it, one has to:
1) find this acceptable
2) find the description of the Voynich MS in the Barschius letter not acceptable

I see that as a judgment issue. (I'm not into biblical quotes but the one with the splinter comes to mind).

Note also that the Barschius letter does not exist in a vacuum, but is part of a larger context.
Marci's book, published in 1662 and definitely genuine, mentions Barschius as his close friend, and Marci also writes that he had just inherited Barschius' library.

A (definitely genuine) letter from Kinner to Kircher in early 1666 says that Marci had just sent an illegible book to Kircher, which he had asked to be translated. This shows that 'the Marci letter' should exist, and Barschius' book should have made its way to Kircher's library in the Roman Collegium Romanum. It is not just some book in Prague in 1639.

Demonstrations that something is a fake are actually quite interesting.
There are a few examples in literature.
These demonstrations are also very difficult, because any aspect that can be explained in a normal way (like all of the above) is not valid evidence for a fake.

I think I will write about that too. It is interesting in itself.

It is valid to wonder if the Voynich MS could be a fake.
One can also believe that the Voynich MS is a fake.
That's where we are.