[quote=“Coemgenu, post:3, topic:4473”]
In it, he relays that the BZA is a rather mysterious collection of literature that is believed to have been part of a much larger Saṃyuktágama that is now lost. He says some place it’s translation at loosely around the same time as the ZA (SA here), but then he seems to also say that this dating is more tenuous than the dating of the ZA. I haven’t read the whole paper yet so I am unsure. The translator(s) of the BZA (SA-2) are unknown as is where they came from or what school they belonged to.
[/quote]Having read more of the article, it turns out that BZA does indeed have very late additions, despite (seemingly paradoxically!) being a generally older recension.
From page 49:[quote]The above shows that the Indian originals of BZA and ZA once had a common ancestor, which was different from the SN and later forked into two different lines of transmission that eventually led to the ZA and BZA. Various examples show that the Indian ZA, which was transmitted to China from Sri Lanka, found closure earlier, while the Indian BZA, which presumably came to China via Central Asia, had continued to absorb elements from the Abhidharma and underwent changes after it had split from the ZA branch.[/quote]The UR-text is believed to have been a Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama from Sri Lanka. The ZA is from somewhere in India and the BZA is from Central Asia.