Some Remarks about the American Bible Society Kaifeng Scroll

 

The Kaifeng Torah Scroll currently housed at the American Bible Society has fascinated the few scholars that have studied it.  Compared to the other surviving seven Kaifeng scrolls it is in poor condition.  Michael Pollak examined the scroll in 1972 and 1973 and noted that the "scroll has suffered severe water damage.  It extends from Genesis 1:1 to Leviticus 18:19 only, displaying numerous lacunae."

The water damage is very apparent, even in a poor image of the microfilm:

Due to the great damage of the scroll, as well as stylistic difference between this scroll and the other six extant scrolls, it was always believe the ABS text predates the seventeenth century.  No evidence is presented to support this.  Here is a note with the ABS scans that purports the scroll to be from the late 15th century (so from the 1450s to the 1499?):

Unlike the scrolls created in the seventeenth century, the ABS scroll does not have a number.  This has been used as another indication that the scroll predates the seventeenth century flurry to copy scrolls.  Internally the scroll has many interesting features.  Pollack cites a scholar named Berkowitz, saying:

"the components of this Torah date back to the period between the twelfth and the fifteenth centuries, and notes that it contains "some interpolated columns on different skins, in other hands and varying formats added at a later date.  One interpolated column, in the middle of one of the older skins, contains Exodus xiv.28-xv."  We can see that interpolated column here:

Most of the scroll is in this hand:

The Song By the Sea is in this hand:

Leviticus 8 is in this hand:

Are there anymore?  The composite nature of this scroll is apparent, and has been noted by others, including Pollack, but what does this tell us about the history of this scroll?  From the style of the handwriting can we tell where and when the parts of this scroll were copied?

Was this scroll even used by the Kaifeng community?  Pollack believes that this was a genizah copy and never used by the community.  Although the Scroll of Moses had or has many of the qualities of the ABS scroll (it was fished from the waters of the Yellow River, and was a composite of many of the scrolls taken from the river, and perhaps new portions were copied) it was, by all accounts, complete.  Much of Pollak's speculation that ABS is not the Scroll of Moses is that the Scroll of Moses was used for Simhat Torah in 1722, and was witnessed as used by Jesuit Jean Domenge.  

A scroll used in a Torah service must be complete.  There is no evidence that the ABS scroll was ever complete.  When it was purchased in 1870, it was in the condition it is now in; was it in better condition in 1722?  Did the Kaifeng Jews use Torah scrolls that were not complete for services?  If this was a genizah copy, why then was what appears to be a seventeenth century interpolation inserted for the Song by the Sea?  Why use such a precious skin in a Torah scroll that would be stored in an attic or storage room?

Pollak, is probably correct, but we will never have enough evidence to know.  We can marshal evidence that the scroll was used to counter any evidence that it was not.  More interesting is examine the state of the scroll as it is, to find out the origins of its exemplars.  I have found that the ABS scrolls contains all the markers and characteristics of a Yemenite scroll.  In fact, in one instance, it has a Yemenite marker where the other scrolls do not:

Pollak cites Dr. I.O. Lehman Curator of the Hebrew Union College, who examined the scroll in 1970.  He believe the ABS scroll was written:

1. not later than the 16th century, possibly earlier

2. shows flood damages, and repairs in a characteristically Chinese hand

3. the scroll was probably taken by a shaliach from the Near East to Kaifeng

4. the whiter skin of certain repaired sections identify it has goat skin prepared at Bokahara

Can we prove any of these assertions?  Pollak goes on to explain that the repairs in a Chinese hand are relatively minor in scope, and this seems to indicate, to him, that this scroll was not one of the two restored and repaired after the 1642 flood by Li Chen and Li Ch'eng-hsien.  The style of calligraphy is very different than the post-1642 scrolls that were produced after the flood.  If this was one of the two scrolls produced by the two Li men, we would expect more "modern" interpolations.  

I look forward to examining this scroll in greater details.  Its pride of position among the seven extant Kaifeng scrolls seems pretty obvious.