Discussion of this scripture’s authorship and authenticity often begins with the contrast between traditional accounts and historical-critical inquiry. Traditional narratives portray it as the very first Buddhist text rendered into Chinese, brought during the Han dynasty by the monks Kāśyapa Mātaṅga and Dharmarakṣa (or Dharmaratna) and presented as a direct collection of the Buddha’s sayings. Modern scholars, however, generally regard this story as largely legendary, noting the absence of firm evidence that such an early, single translation event actually occurred. The traditional attribution is thus treated more as a hagiographical memory of Buddhism’s arrival in China than as a precise historical record.

From a philological and stylistic perspective, the text itself raises further questions about origin and authorship. Its language and structure resemble a concise anthology of ethical and doctrinal maxims rather than a continuous discourse, and this has led many scholars to see it as a compilation rather than a translation of one Indian source. The style is strongly shaped by Chinese modes of expression, and the terminology reflects the concerns of early Chinese audiences who were only beginning to encounter Buddhist thought. Such features suggest that the work was either composed in Chinese or heavily redacted in China, drawing on a range of earlier teachings rather than preserving a single, fixed sermon.

Textual comparison adds another layer to the debate. Certain sections parallel passages found in early Buddhist collections, which indicates that much of its doctrinal content resonates with early Buddhist teaching. Yet no corresponding “Forty-Two Sections” scripture has been located in Indic languages or in the Pāli Canon as a unified work, and this absence reinforces the sense that the text is an anthology assembled on Chinese soil. Variants in the ordering and number of sections across different versions further support the view that it functioned as a flexible teaching collection rather than a closed canonical unit from the outset.

For many scholars, therefore, questions of authenticity turn on how “Buddha’s word” is understood. From a strict historical standpoint, the scripture is not usually regarded as a verbatim Indian discourse of the Buddha, since it lacks a clear Indic original and bears the imprint of Chinese composition and adaptation. Yet as an early Chinese Buddhist scripture, it is often treated as authentically reflective of how the Buddha’s message was received, selected, and reshaped in a new cultural landscape. In this sense, its debated authorship becomes part of its spiritual significance: it stands as a witness to the meeting of Indian Buddhist insight with Chinese literary and ethical sensibilities, rather than as a mere translation of a lost original.