SuttaCentral
I didn’t say AN 6.24 and AN 6.27 are not authentic. I said, SN 34 may be inauthentic based on the observation that it uses abhidhamma matrix permutation technique that doesn’t match the simple oral tradition style of AN 6.24 and AN 6.27.
edit: removed comment that’s no longer applicable
You might consider adding some of the āgamas that I’m working with in my off-again on-again dharmakāya thread, if they are EBTs, they seem unable to be “proven” to be so by any of the more rigorous methodologies that can be applied to parallels in Indic languages, and seem to exhibit some of the rūpakāya-dharmakāya Buddhology that characterizes a later period of Buddhism than what one usually deals with in EBTs. We really need a handy discovery of a complete copy of the Sanskrit.
Its an ambiguous issue, because 2 of them “are” EBTs, they have parallels, they match their parallels reasonably, and yet anomalous language features in them (such as discussing dharmakāya) that sets them apart from “normal” EBTs.
Thanks everyone for their suggestions.
Regarding MN 117 and SN 34, my initial thought is that, while they may indeed have late features, the bulk of the content is pretty normal. Maybe they, or part of them, should be included, but they’re not at the top of my list.
I just checked, and I’m afraid that a substantial portion of that article is based on SA 604, which is not the Samyuktagama at all. It is, in fact, a portion of the Ashokavadana, a later biography of King Ashoka, which was mistakenly inserted in the Chinese text, probably through a filing error during the Chinese transmission. If it makes you feel better, Etienne Lamotte, one of the true greats of Buddhist studies, made the same mistake. So anyway, it is certainly inauthentic.
Meanwhile, @vimala, SA 604 has a display bug in the division table. The title appears as SA 604（六〇四） SA 604（六〇四）, where the Chinese is just the number. Now, I think this is extracted from the text, and I have changed the title there, so hopefully this should be okay. However, we should also add a "Note’ to this entry, which can say
SA 604 is a portion of the Aśokavadāna. It appears to have been inserted in SA by a clerical error during the transmission in China.
A similar situation occurs with SA 640 and SA 641. We should add a similar note, changing the sutta number of course.
@Brahmali, it should be a formality, but to confirm: add SA 604, SA 640, SA 641.
Splendid, thanks. But to give a tiny further push for the above point, taking whatever suttas you do think squarely belong on the inauthentic list, how is it that you (or others) feel they should be approached, is making this list an alternative way of saying “don’t bother read those ones”?
Yes, “inauthentic” essentially means “is not authored in the way that it claims”. I’ll clarify this in the OP.
For @Brahmali: some low-hanging fruit:
For fans of DN, sorry, but I may well want to add DN 18, DN 19, DN 21, and a few others to this. But I’ll be generous and leave it at this for now.
The exercise has been attempted here
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/articles/mn117-early-and-late.html
This article offers comparisons between the textual material contained in the Mahācattārīsaka Sutta and texts of late origin, such as the Abhidhamma and some of the works found in the Khuddaka Nikāya. It will show that this sutta forms a patchwork of what is probably early material and inserted late formulas.
The article has been recently revised and the original tone softened.
Also this book contains a fair amount of research relevant to this thread:
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Studies%20in%20the%20Origins%20of%20Buddhism_Pande.pdf
I wonder whether we need to define authenticity in a bit more detail. Take DN22: as a whole the sutta is late, but there are substantial parts of it that are early. The same is true of MN 111. (By contrast some of the suttas you list below have hardly any early material at all, such DN 20, DN 30, and DN 32.) This is the sort of dilemma we will face throughout. I suppose we need to decide whether suttas that seems to contain any late editorial addition or change or deletion (apart from the narrative) should be included on the list. This would mean that MN 117, for instance, needs to be included. Perhaps we need different categories: entire suttas that are IA (inauthentic), suttas where the majority of the material in IA (e.g. DN 22), and suttas where a minority of the material is IA. We need to find a way of choosing suttas that has sufficient integrity and clarity. I haven’t made any changes to the OP, since I think we need to discuss this first of all.
@Coemgenu brings up the interesting point of whether the same exercise should to be done for the Āgamas in Chinese, and indeed other languages. My feeling is that we should focus on the Pali at present so as not to make the task unmanageable. If, however, Coemgenu and others wish to contribute towards the goal of including texts from other languages, I think that would be great. I suppose they can be added to the list when we feel the evidence is strong enough to warrant it. Whether we really have the expertise to make that call, however, is not clear to me.
Another thing we should perhaps do is reference secondary literature. The problems with the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta(s) go far beyond the additions made to DN 22, as you have amply demonstrated in The History of Mindfulness. The summary you have made above is certainly useful, but it is a far cry from your thorough historical deconstruction. People who may not be persuaded by the former, might well find the latter compelling.
Sure. There is nothing very controversial here, but it is easier to make a firm decision once you see the actual criteria for lateness. Would you be able to give a list of hard-hitting and irrefutable criteria? (Yes, yes, I know there is no such thing.)
I think some of the issues I raised in my previous post are exemplified by the list you have presented here. Both DN 33 and DN 34 contain a lot of early material. Yes, the presentation is different and the amount of IA material is also pronounced. Yet I suspect both of these suttas belong to the category I would call “minority IA”.
I don’t have any basis for having an opinion on this, but I trust your judgement. So please go ahead.
Okay, well let’s go ahead and add these, and see about adding criteria as we go.
How about we expand the entries to include a description of the type of inauthenticity? Rather then trying to establish a typology, which would get complex fast. I’ve edited the OP to show what I mean, and added an entry for DN 30.
Yes, this would be a good enhancement.
I have just looked at your changes and it seems to work. This is probably the most accurate way of capturing the degree and the nature of the inauthenticity.
That looks a lot better. 
[quote=“sujato, post:11, topic:5795”]
I just checked, and I’m afraid that a substantial portion of that article is based on SA 604, which is not the Samyuktagama at all. It is, in fact, a portion of the Ashokavadana, a later biography of King Ashoka, which was mistakenly inserted in the Chinese text, probably through a filing error during the Chinese transmission. If it makes you feel better, Etienne Lamotte, one of the true greats of Buddhist studies, made the same mistake.
[/quote]Thank you, bhante. I figured when I started the inquiry, due to the nature of what I was inquiring about, that they may well all of them be later, so I put “and early Buddhist sectarianism” to cover myself 
. I’ll edit the article accordingly for the sections dealing with SA 604.
In response to Ven @Brahmali: there is a small thread dedicated to collecting possible manuscript errors. We just need someone who is actually “professionally qualified”, if you will, to go over and confirm those that are not the observation of someone already qualified (and if such qualifications are already behind the decision to put something on that thread I will make sure that it is cited).
If the list grows big enough (and the corrections on it significant enough) to be an issue for people trying explore the Chinese Buddhavacana, perhaps that list of notes could be confirmed and then integrated with the site so that readers will have that information available to them, but as it is currently, it is moreso just a list of occasional curiosities than anything that would be vital for clarification and context when reading these texts.
As an update to Suttacentral, could I suggest that there be colour coding in the background of the texts? The normal white background for early/authentic material, and for example a light blue background for material which is known to be later, and for example a light pink background for material which is considered probably later but still uncertain. And perhaps a system where the reasoning behind the certainty or possibility of that part of the text being inauthentic, is made visible also, by a link or a clickable popup explanation or something? Thus you can have sections of different colours even within one sutta, for example.
That way, the reader can easily see visually how much certainty or not, to put into the text she is reading. Rather than to only know by having to traul endlessly through scholarly writing on the matter (or to consult this wonderful list you have compiled) to try to find if anyone has the answer. That is, this would put the great work of scholars in an accessible and highly useful form for readers of the suttas/vinaya to integrate into their reading of the teachings.
I’m in favor of shining the light on truth and exposing everything. As long as the list is clear exactly which part is not authentic EBT, people can use their own judgement on the suitability of the entire sutta, or the parts of it that are still valid. MN 117 is a sutta I like very much also, but I believe we should include that on the list and point out the parts that are not EBT.
Thank you!
To specify degrees of authenticity seems to be better than just making a clear cut division within the Four Great Nikayas between “authentic” and “unauthentic”. After all, you may be mistaken in your classification, and create more confusion than enlightenment in your readers. Please also always specify the reason, why a certain text section should be regarded as “unauthentic”.
I agree with your selection of only six authentic EBT texts in KhN (without Vv, Pv, Ja). But there are Jaataka stories in the four Nikaayas, and in the Vinaya Pi.taka?
You certainly could. And i could equally well say no! SuttaCentral is for transmitting the texts, not for offering opinions on them. That’s what Discourse is for.
Suggestions, pending @Brahmali’s approval.
###DN 16 Mahāparinibbāna
Much of this text presents a realistic account of the Buddha’s last days. It is presumably based on the recollections by Ānanda following the Buddha’s death. As it stands, however, it is a highly composite text, with many later additions. The length and complexity of the text, as well as the wealth of parallels, make it hard to generalize. However, later portions include:
###DN 17 Mahāsudassana
This discourse was expanded from the small core on King Mahāsudassana found in DN 16#541-544.
###DN 18 Janavasabha
Like DN 17, this has been expanded from a short passage in DN 16, namely the explanation of the rebirths of the people of Nādika. (DN 16#165ff) Again like DN 17, this has a parallel in the Samyutta, namely SN 55.8.
If the Mahāsudassana is taken as having been composed as a meditation text, as proposed by Rupert Gethin*, then I think a bit of “Trumpishness” might be excused. 