18-05-2026, 12:22 AM
As someone who has followed the 'Chinese' theory from its very beginning, let me add in a few neutral words.
One can largely split "Voynich Explanation Theories" into two groups (with a bit of a grey zone):
They can be evidence-based, and they can be "what if..." based.
What I consider "what if..." theories, are those that are not derived from any evidence, but basically say: Let's assume XYZ, and see where that assumption takes us. This is not immediately an invalid approach, but it is dangerous as it has great potential to set off a quest for positive evidence only, ignoring any red flags or even clear counter-evidence.
It would take this thread off-topic to list what I think are examples.
Evidence-based theories can have similar problems (i.e. appear like what-if theories), because both the evidence and the initial deductions leading to the theory may be weak to some extent.
In any case, the 'Chinese' theory is definitely an evidence-based theory. It derives from two apparently independent statistics of the text: the highly unusual word patterns, which lack any good explanation, and the shape of the word length distribution, which is also somewhat unusual, but not as strong as the first argument.
For this reason, I will maintain an interest in this topic.
Of course it also has serious problems, which are obvious: the story of how the MS would have been created is highly adventurous and nothing in the manuscript's material or illustrations points to the far East.
The main on-going argument here, that the last quire in the MS represents a specific historical text, has not convinced me, but I am not planning to enter that discussion. I may develop a more positive opinion if better evidence appears.
One can largely split "Voynich Explanation Theories" into two groups (with a bit of a grey zone):
They can be evidence-based, and they can be "what if..." based.
What I consider "what if..." theories, are those that are not derived from any evidence, but basically say: Let's assume XYZ, and see where that assumption takes us. This is not immediately an invalid approach, but it is dangerous as it has great potential to set off a quest for positive evidence only, ignoring any red flags or even clear counter-evidence.
It would take this thread off-topic to list what I think are examples.
Evidence-based theories can have similar problems (i.e. appear like what-if theories), because both the evidence and the initial deductions leading to the theory may be weak to some extent.
In any case, the 'Chinese' theory is definitely an evidence-based theory. It derives from two apparently independent statistics of the text: the highly unusual word patterns, which lack any good explanation, and the shape of the word length distribution, which is also somewhat unusual, but not as strong as the first argument.
For this reason, I will maintain an interest in this topic.
Of course it also has serious problems, which are obvious: the story of how the MS would have been created is highly adventurous and nothing in the manuscript's material or illustrations points to the far East.
The main on-going argument here, that the last quire in the MS represents a specific historical text, has not convinced me, but I am not planning to enter that discussion. I may develop a more positive opinion if better evidence appears.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)