Possible translation of the manuscript into medieval Hebrew.

[Mfur82]

Good morning everyone,

I've been intrigued by the Voynich manuscript, and when I was a child, I loved inventing codes to encrypt texts.

I used a very basic method to encrypt them. It basically involved replacing a letter with a symbol and writing that way. But this had its problems. I had to learn all the symbols and their respective substitutes by heart. It also meant I couldn't read without the "code," nor could I write fluently.

So, I invented a practical method that allowed me to write quickly and read without having to memorize it. The idea was simple: just rotate the letters. For example, the letter E became an M or the A became a V. That way, the word "CASA" (house in spanish) became UV~V.

But this wasn't enough, and an extra layer of security was needed. So I wrote the text using a mirror. This way, the word UV~V became V~VU.

Although the reading direction changed, from L > R to R > L, it was easy to read even without a mirror. The first thing I did was write the entire text in rough draft. Then, using a mirror, I copied it directly onto the page.

This would explain why the Voynich manuscript has no corrections, since it was copied to a clean copy.

Using this idea, I set out to discover what language its creator used. The first ones that come to mind are Latin and Greek. For that reason, I looked for words that appeared heavily in the transliterated EVA text and looked for similarities with words in Latin and Greek.

To do this, I used a marking system: ABCDEFG, according to the order of the letters and their repetition. For example: The "daiin," which appears many times in EVA, or "chaiin," becomes ABCCD.

With this scheme, I looked for similar words in Latin and Greek. Same repetition and same placement, although the order is considered mirrored.

In Latin and Greek, some similarities appeared, but nothing remarkable.

When I was a teenager, I really liked Ancient Egyptian and remembered that languages ​​like Egyptian or Hebrew often reduce words to only consonants. So I thought those repeated letters were consonants, not vowels. And then coincidences appeared.

Medieval Hebrew agrees with this theory. And it makes sense that it was mirrored, since Hebrew is read from right to left, and using a mirror would mean writing from left to right. For example, the word "daiin".

daiin → חיים (ḥayyim):
Mirror reading: מ – י – י – א – ח

Meaning: “life”

Following this theory, I set out to translate sentences randomly to see if they match the illustration.

first sentence of f47r. I will be rigorous in each transformation and explain the degree of confidence in each reading.

1) How I understand “using the mirror” (protocol)
We take the EVA transliteration as it appears (visual order L→R).

We reverse the order of the glyphs (this simulates the R→L reading).

For each inverted glyph, I apply a consistent visual mapping (Voynich glyph → Hebrew letter) that assumes the author wrote “mirrored” forms of Hebrew letters.

I read the mapped result from right to left like a normal Hebrew word.

I indicate the confidence level (high/moderate/low) for each correspondence.

2) Visual mapping table (used in this experiment)
(This mapping is consistent for the entire sentence; it is visual/hypothetical)

p → פ


ch / c → ח


h / e → ה


a → א


i, y, j → י


r → ר


o → ו


l → ל


s → ש

d → (here we keep the previously best visual reading) ח (this is a visual mapping: the glyph d in many Voynich forms resembles a ח or a reflected dalet; I will use ח for consistency with previous readings)

n / m → מ


k → כ


q → ק


t / T → ת

Note: These correspondences are hypothetical and based on the assumption of visual + mirror encryption.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) first sentence (f47r.P.1) — EVA (Stolfi/Takahashi):
pchair. oly. sheaiin. shol. daiin. chdy-
I'll go word by word.

A) pchair
EVA (L→R): p — ch — a — i — r


Inverted (simulating mirror): r — i — a — ch — p


Mapping ( → Hebrew): r→ר, i→י, a→א, ch→ח, p→פ


Hebrew sequence (in the same order): ר – י – א – ח – פ


read hebrew (R→L): פ ח א י ר → If we interpret א here as matres lectionis (sometimes unpronounced vowel marking) it is simplified to פ ח י ר or ר י ח פ depending on the order — the most natural Hebrew form that arises is ריחפ / ריחף (ri·ḥaf) or ריחפ which is very close to ריחף / ריחף (root ר־י־ח / ריח = smell / aroma; ריחף = “to float; wave / to waft”), i.e. “emanate smell / give off aroma.”


Confidence: moderate (the reading “aroma/emanation” fits very well with the illustrated plantation and the resulting form is lexically plausible).



B) oly
EVA: o — l — y


Inverted: y — l — o


Map: y→י, l→ל, o→ו


hebrew secuence: י – ל – ו


Read R→L (Hebrew): ו ל י → Simplifying, the most natural reading would be לו (it) with a prosthetic yod or mark (i.e. “to him/for him”).


Confidence: moderate (functionally very plausible in context).



C) sheaiin
EVA: s — h — e — a — i — i — n


Inverted: n — i — i — a — e — h — s


Map: n→מ, i→י, i→י, a→א, e→ה, h→ה, s→ש


hebrew secuence: מ – י – י – א – ה – ה – ש


Read R→L: ש ה ה א י י מ → if we simplify vowel marks (אל/ה as matres lectionis) and condense doubles יי → יː, a possible reduced reading would be שיאים / שַיִּים / שׁוֹאִים, but there is no direct high confidence Hebrew form here. It could be a participle or derived form (e.g. something with a suffix/state: “what…”, “the one…”).


Confidence: low (high ambiguity; there are too many vowels/elements for a reliable reading).



D) shol
EVA: s — h — o — l


Inverted: l — o — h — s


Map: l→ל, o→ו, h→ה, s→ש


hebrew secuence: ל – ו – ה – ש


Read R→L: ש ה ו ל → Possible interpretation: שול / שווהל — not a trivial Hebrew word, but in a botanical context, it may be a derived or abbreviated form. Shol appears frequently elsewhere, and some researchers have linked it to numbers or repetitive terms; I do not propose a firm reading here.

Confidence: Low-moderate (known repetitive pattern in Voynich, but imprecise meaning).



E) daiin
EVA: d — a — i — i — n


Inverted: n — i — i — a — d


Mapping (using d→ח according to the visual mapping that gave us matches): n→מ, i→י, i→י, a→א, d→ח

Hebrew sequence: מ – י – י – א – ח

Reading R→L: ח א י י מ → חיים (ḥayyim) = “life” (if we interpret aleph as a vocal support and follow the reading convention).

Confidence: High-moderate (this is the reading that has yielded the most consistency throughout the manuscript with this mapping: daiin → חיים).


F) chdy- (suffix/short word)
EVA: ch — d — y

Reversed: y — d — ch

Mapping: y→י, d→ח, ch→ח

Hebrew sequence: י – ח – ח

Read R→L: ח ח י → possible reduction חי / חיח; could be a suffix or shortened form of חי (“living/life”) or a root + suffix combination.

Confidence: Low (possible suffix related to “life”).


4) Integrated reading and tentative translation of the first sentence (f47r.P.1)
Joining the parts with a greater degree of confidence and respecting order and approximate Hebrew syntax:
pchair → (ריחף / ריח) → emanate smell / aroma


oly → לו → for him/him


sheaiin → (ambiguous element, possibly modifier or participle)


shol → (repetitive element / perhaps quantifier or descriptor — weak reading)


daiin → חיים → life


chdy- → (suffix/affix related to life/status)


Proposed meaning (very cautious):
“(The flower) emanates aroma for him—(it is) life…”
or, expanding slightly:
“Its aroma rises toward him; (this) life (is/gives)…”
(The central part, sheaiin shol, remains ambiguous; it could introduce a nuance like “in abundance / constantly / three times”—I can't pinpoint it with certainty).
This may fit with the medieval form of writing, which was always somewhat poetic.

The translation of the first three lines on page 47 would be approximately the following:

“Emanate aroma for him; life.”
“Moisture gives life and aroma.”
“The stem covers with moisture; life.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Emanate aroma to him; life.”
“Moisture gives life and aroma.”
“The stem covers with moisture; life.”

This is, of course, a theory, and I'd love for language specialists to refute it so we can continue research in other ways.

Thank you all.