Why is the MS not a copy of older, non European sources?

[Sam G]

What nobody ever seems to consider is the possibility that the illustrations are more recent than the text.  Either the text may have been originally unaccompanied by illustrations, or it may have been accompanied by illustrations very different from those we see in the VMS.  Everyone seems to assume that the same person who authored the text must have also drawn the illustrations, or at least worked with the person who drew the illustrations, even though I suspect that's rarely the case for illustrated medieval manuscripts.

It seems clear that the illustrations in the VMS have been influenced by images found in other European manuscripts, but at the same time they are never copied exactly and have generally been modified to the point where it's unlikely that they are representing the same thing.  What seems most likely to me is that someone wanted to add illustrations to a text which he did not write, and so he turned to the illustrated manuscripts he had available for inspiration.

The main problem with the idea that the text was originally unillustrated would be the presence of labels in the illustrations, which must be accounted for.  So these were probably excerpted from texts which were not incorporated into the VMS in intact form.  Probably the entire VMS is a redaction of a larger mass of source materials.

As far as the idea that the text is older than early 15th century and of ultimately non-European origin, I obviously agree.