Source: Nattier 2008b

The commentary layer in T225A (the first chapter of T225) contains citations of several texts [with obvious implications for relative dating]. Nattier identifies these texts with T602, T708 (but Nattier cannot find a parallel in T708 to the material cited in T225A), T210, T624, and T632. Nattier notes that the same texts are cited in T1694.

Of the citation of the 了本, which Nattier links to T708, Zacchetti has suggested that the text cited in T225A could actually be a commentary composed by Zhi Qian on T708, and promised a study on the topic; Zacchetti (2016): 101-102 n. 43.

Edit

304-305 n. 19

Nattier divides this text into three portions for the purpose of analysis: T225A, i.e. the first chapter; the interlinear commentary contained in T225A only; and T225B, comprising the remaining chapters, which feature no commentary. In brief, Nattier argues for the following attributions of each of these three portions: T225A root text: An anonymous translator, from whom we may have no other works; T225A interlinear commentary: someone in the same Wu-kingdom community that produced T1694 (after Zacchetti's analysis of the latter text); T225B: Zhi Qian. Nattier's principal reasons are as follows:

T225A root text: The vocabulary of T225A and T225B differ fundamentally and systematically, showing that both texts cannot be by the same translator. These differences include not only Buddhist terms, but also pronouns, verbs of speech, formulaic phrases, and so on. T225A contains a number of items that never appear in any securely attributed Zhi Qian text. Nattier considers the possibility that the translator could be Kang Senghui, who is also attributed with a (lost) version of the text under translation, but shows that the terminology also differs from Kang Senghui's benchmark (and only extant) text, T152.

T225A interlinear commentary: Like T1694, this commentary features comments from "the master" 師云. It cites from a very similar range of texts as T1694.

T225B: To establish this attribution, Nattier must argue in part against Lancaster (1969), who claimed that T225 in its entirety was translated by An Xuan and not Zhi Qian. Nattier acknowledges similarities in some terminology and phraseology between T322, An Xuan's (and Yan Fotiao's) only extant text, and T225B in particular; but she argues that these similarities are signs of the influence of T322 on Zhi Qian. She also shows that key terms differ between T322 and T225B, and further, that the basic translation policy differs --- T322 uniformly translates rather than transcribing all terms, whereas T225B does not. The attribution to Zhi Qian is clinched by the presence in T225B of several "extremely unusual items that are virtually unique to the translations of Zhi Qian" (328 ff.).

T225B has the following additional characteristics: It is in considerable part a revision of *Lokakṣema's T224, and highly abbreviated in comparison to that earlier version of the same text; in particular, T225B follows the non-technical wording of T224 very closely; and T225B follows T224 closely in content.

T225A, by contrast, shows no signs of reference to T224, and shows no signs of abbreviation; it also does not conform to T224 in content.

T225A and T225B, despite the above-mentioned clear overall differences in the nature of the two texts, do share some rare terms. Nattier argues that this is because T225A was composed after T225B, and with some reference to it.

Nattier shows that the two texts must have been amalgamated before the time of Xuanying's 玄應 Yiqie jing yin yi 一切經音義 T2128.

Edit

Nattier notes that the interlinear commentary in T225A cites T602. T602 must therefore date before the production of T225A.

Edit

304-35 n. 19

Nattier notes that the interlinear commentary in T225A cites T632. T632 must therefore date before the production of T225A.

Edit

304-305 n. 19