Scriptures & Spiritual Texts  Sutra of Forty-Two Sections FAQs  FAQ

How has the authorship or authenticity of the Sutra of Forty-Two Sections been debated by scholars?

Scholars have been volleying theories about the Sutra of Forty-Two Sections ever since it popped onto China’s literary scene around the late fourth or early fifth century. Traditional Chinese catalogues credit translators like Kāshyapa Matanga and Dharmarakṣa, but closer inspection reveals a quilt of phrases lifted from diverse Buddhist texts—an early patchwork rather than a single, pristine translation from India.

By the mid-20th century, sinologists began to raise eyebrows. Étienne Lamotte noted stylistic discrepancies when compared with indisputably Indian sutras. More recently, Jan Nattier’s work on Chinese apocrypha highlighted striking parallels between this text’s vocabulary and other homegrown compositions, suggesting local monks may have stitched together key Buddha-sayings to meet burgeoning demand for canonical material.

On the other side of the debate, proponents argue for its Indian lineage, pointing to parallels in Pali and Sanskrit fragmentary collections. Rhys Davids once leaned toward authenticity until fresh manuscript discoveries showed odd turns of phrase more common in fourth-century Chang’an than in Nalanda. A 2022 panel at the International Congress on Buddhist Studies further stirred the pot: digital stylometry applied by a Japanese team flagged statistical “fingerprints” quite unlike those in verified Indian translations, tipping the scales toward a Chinese origin.

Still, some resist labeling it purely apocryphal. They argue that absence of early Indian manuscripts isn’t proof of Chinese invention—after all, countless genuine texts vanished over centuries. The authorial mystery remains wide open, with each new textual analysis or archaeological find offering fresh clues. Meanwhile, the Sutra of Forty-Two Sections continues to occupy a curious middle ground—part venerated bridge into Buddhist teachings for early Chinese practitioners, part riddling enigma for modern scholars.