Thanks for linking a very interesting work. I gave it a quick read and found it has much to ponder on and definitely deserves a more careful look when I have more time. The comparison with the Sutta Nipata version is especially interesting.
I find Bucknell’s argument about the corruption because of oral transmission a bit unconvincing. It is perfectly sound as it is in the paper, but it blatantly ignores the two-bundle metaphor that Nimal mentioned. This metaphor suits the looped version perfectly, and the looped version itself is pretty ancient as Bucknell notes, so not accounting for Ven. Sariputta’s simile given its close connections with the doctrinal contents of DN 15 devalues Bucknell’s arguments.
There is also a number of lesser issues with the paper that require explanation. So, if namarupa is a totality of six sense objects and not the body, where exactly is the body in the Dependent Origination formula, at which step does it emerge? If the ‘looping corruption’ is so ancient and the numbers of monks and nuns back at the time were not that high, how come no other reciters, scholastic specialists or other monastic communities objected to messing with an extremely important doctrinal formula? Why doesn’t Bucknell mention this citation from DN 15 that directly follows the ‘loop’?
… to this extent that there is a pathway for designation, to this extent that there is a pathway for language, to this extent that there is a pathway for description…
In fact, this citation, at least in my understanding, can provide some indirect evidence for Bucknell’s branching interpretation of the origin of vinnana, but it is surprising he doesn’t mention it at all.