The ABS is not the Scroll of Moses: perhaps

 

It has been noted the the ABS scroll is different from the six other extant Kaifeng Torah scrolls.  The scroll is damaged and incomplete, unlike the other six scrolls, which are intact.  The ABS scroll has some differences in handwriting and style as well, and it is written in at least three hands.  All the extant Kaifeng scrolls are numbered, and were part of the project to create eleven or twelve Torah scrolls after the flood of 1642.

Michael Pollak, relying on the investigations of two scholars before him, contented that the ABS scroll is not the Scroll of Moses, as it is incomplete.  The Scroll of Moses was used for the Torah service in Kaifeng in 1723, as witnessed by a Jesuit.  Pollak supposes that the Kaifeng Jews would not use a damaged or incomplete scroll for a service.  Therefore, he holds that this scroll was rescued out of the Yellow river but never used in services.  I believed it was a genizah copy. If the scroll was truly used after the flood, it would show  It extensive repair work, and it does not (except for the Song by the Sea, which I will examine later) and it is a different calligraphic style than the post-1642 Kaifeng scrolls.  The only certain way to discover if the ABS scrolls is the Scroll of Moses is to see if the other scrolls agree with it in most matters.  If the Scroll of Moses was truly used to copy the other 10 or 11 Kaifeng scrolls after 1642, there should be many points of similarity.

I have read through from Genesis 1 to 15 of the ABS, and here are some very tentative remarks.  So far, the ABS variants and specific characteristics do not cluster with the BLS/SMU/VS scrolls. 

For example, in Genesis 4:4, ABS does not have a defective spelling for this word, as the other three scrolls (VS is missing here).  ABS has the plene spelling of modern scrolls.

In Genesis 7:11, ABS has the defective spelling of this word, whereas the BLS/SMU/VS scroll share a plene spelling.

Here, ABS has an apparent error, and only scroll that has the error:

In Genesis 14:9, ABS spells this name as one word, whereas the BLS/SMU/HUC/VS write this name as two words:

There are 19 examples of variants from Genesis 1-15 in all the scrolls and the HUC, and of those, fully 16 show ABS as  not sharing the particular variation with the BLS, SMU, and VS examples.  There are three instances where it shares a variant with HUC.

If this trend continues, it appears that the ABS scroll was not used to copy the other Kaifeng scrolls after 1642.  The ABS scroll, if this continues, stands outside the copying tradition of the Kaifeng community after 1642.  It was not updated to reflect the understanding of the community of its Torah scrolls in the seventeenth century. A possible exception may be the Song by the Sea:

This appears to be a newer skin attached to the other, damages sections of the ABS scroll.  It seems to be in the Kaifeng seventieth century writing style.  This section contains many shared variants across VS and BLS.  Will this section contain them as well?