Kojiki has stirred up its fair share of debates over the centuries, often centering on three big issues: historical accuracy, political appropriation, and interpretive bias.

• History versus myth
Scholars still argue over how much of Kojiki reflects “real” early Japan and how much is poetic invention. Compared to its counterpart Nihon Shoki—compiled a few years later in 720 CE—Kojiki’s more folk‐inflected style raises questions about its reliability as a straight-up chronicle. Some researchers treat its genealogies and origin tales as symbolic blueprints rather than literal records, while others hunt for archaeological evidence to back up those divine lineages.

• State Shinto and nationalism
During the Meiji Restoration, Kojiki was pressed into service to legitimize the emperor’s divinity and cement national unity. That political spin still echoes today. In recent years, right‐wing groups have quoted passages to bolster ultra‐nationalist speeches at Yasukuni Shrine ceremonies. Critics worry that cherry-picking these myths risks distorting Japan’s complex history and feeding exclusionary ideologies.

• Translation and interpretation
Rendering eighth-century Japanese—peppered with ancient Chinese characters—poses a linguistic minefield. Different translators choose either a literal approach (which can feel stiff) or a more dynamic one (risking modern-day overlays). That tug-of-war means two English editions can read like night and day. Fresh scholarship in 2022 even uncovered subtle regional dialect clues suggesting Hieda no Are’s original drafts might have been more diverse than Ō no Yasumaro’s final compilation lets on.

In the wake of the Tokyo Olympics’ identity-quest wave, Kojiki’s role in shaping national narratives has popped back into public view. Debates now swirl over whether Shinto myths should remain living cultural heritage or be scrutinized as historical documents. Either way, the conversation is far from settled—and that’s all the richer for it.