Modern scholarship approaches the Puranas with both appreciation and critical distance, and several recurring points of controversy emerge from that encounter. A central issue concerns dating and authorship: the texts present themselves as ancient and unified, yet philological study reveals composite works shaped over long periods, with multiple redactions and layers. The traditional attribution to figures such as Vyāsa is therefore seen less as a historical claim and more as a theological or literary convention. This fluidity of composition makes it difficult to assign precise dates or single authors, and scholars debate how to distinguish earlier strata from later additions.

Closely related is the problem of textual fluidity and interpolation. Manuscript traditions of the same Purana can differ significantly, with verses, chapters, and even large sections added, omitted, or rearranged. Evidence of sectarian interpolations—Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, Śākta, and others—suggests that the texts were used to promote particular deities, lineages, or ritual systems. This raises questions about authenticity and authority, since there is no universally fixed list or version of the major Puranas, and different communities privilege different recensions. Such instability complicates the use of these works as straightforward sources for history or doctrine.

Another major area of criticism concerns historical reliability and cosmology. Puranic genealogies, dynastic lists, and vast cosmic timelines often conflict with archaeological and epigraphic data, and their yugas and kalpas are understood by most scholars as mythic rather than historiographic. The blending of mythological, historical, and cosmological material without clear boundaries makes it challenging to extract reliable historical information. Cosmological descriptions of multiple worlds and vast cycles of time also stand at odds with modern scientific models, and attempts to read them as coded advanced science are widely regarded as anachronistic.

The Puranas are also scrutinized for their social and theological dimensions. Many passages reinforce varṇa-based hierarchy and patriarchal norms, sometimes depicting certain social groups and women in ways that modern reformers and feminist scholars regard as discriminatory. At the same time, the texts display strong sectarian tendencies, elevating a chosen deity—Viṣṇu, Śiva, Devī, and others—as supreme and subordinating rival traditions. This sectarian coloring, along with internal contradictions between and within Puranas, is taken as evidence of theological competition and the effort to standardize diverse local practices under broader religious frameworks.

Finally, scholars debate how these texts should be read and situated. Some emphasize their function as mythic-theological literature and ritual performance, others treat them as cultural encyclopedias or as ideological documents that legitimize dynasties, castes, and sacred geographies. Interpretive approaches range from literal to allegorical, with no single hermeneutic commanding universal assent. These controversies do not erase the spiritual and cultural significance of the Puranas, but they do shape how their authority, meaning, and role in the wider landscape of dharma and devotion are understood.