The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Yavernoxia]

The problem is that there is no such thing as "the SBJ sensu stricto".

This is indeed a problem!  I don't see how we can definitively identify the text if we don't even know what the text is, and I don't see an explanation of how you are overcoming this problem.

Forget Chinese and the SPS for a moment, and suppose instead that someone finds an "Alchemist Herbal" in Italian (AHI) which has about the same number of plants as the Herbal-A section of the VMS (VHA).  He wonders whether VHA may be a version of AHI.  He notes the following things:

• The most common word in AHI, A, occurs seven times in the longest entry of the AHI.
  
• Eacluding two of them, the other five occurrences of A  are separated by  32, 13, 25, and 30 words.
  
• The most common word in VHA, V, occurs five times in the longest entry of the VHA.
  
• Those five occurrences of V are separated by 30, 14, 26, and 31 words.
  
• At positions corresponding to the two excluded occurences of A, the VHA has words V1 and V2 that are very similar to V.
  
• Words V1 and V2 occur three times on that entry.
  
• Disregarding one of them, the seven occurrences of V, V1, and V2 are separated by 30, 14, 10, 16, 21, and 10 words.
  
• The seven occurrences of A are separated by 32, 13, 15, 11, 14, 19, and 11 words.
  

(The numbers for the VHA are totally made up, but pretend they are true.)

However, the AHI entry has 10 words before the first A, while the VHA entry has only 2 words before the first V.  And the AHI entry has 19 words after the last A, while the VHA entry has only 6.

Are these discrepancies reason enough to reject the claim that the VHA is a version of the AHI?  

Further research shows that there are several versions of the AHI out there, which differ in many details -- including whole sentences or whole entries being added or deleted.
(Check You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for an actual example of this variation.) 

I am sure that any palographer would see the coincidences above as very strong evidence that the VHA is a version of the AHI.  After all, the initial decipherments of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, Hittite, Linear B, etc. were based on much more limited evidence.

I think there’s a basic difference here. In the example you mentioned, we’re still talking about a European language, which is exactly what the paleography seems to point to. The manuscript looks European, shows European influences, uses a European writing style, and, as far as we know, has only ever had European owners. On top of that, this fits neatly with the carbon dating and with what most VMS scholars (Lisa, etc...) already think. So it wouldn’t be surprising if, sooner or later, someone identified a European “source” text, for example an Italian one, as you suggested.

Saying instead that the source was Chinese is a much bigger leap. That would mean rethinking a lot of assumptions and coming up with a whole chain of explanations, coincidences, new discoveries, and, above all, solid proof. At the moment, that scenario just seems much less likely to me.