[Buddha-l] Are the Pali Sutta's really ancient?

[Bankei]

I was just reading some of Gregory Schopen which has got me thinking.

How do we know that the Pali Sutta that we have today is the same as the
Sutta back in Buddhaghosa's time, or at the time they were committed to
writing back in the 1st century?

The oldest surviving Pali manuscript is from around the 14th century (a
fragment of the Vinaya found in Nepal). There are few inscriptions earlier,
but generally only a few lines long. Asoka is said to have mentioned 7 Sutta
worth reading in one of his inscriptions, but only a few have been
identified and even these are not sure. There is also a lack of Pali
inscriptions found in India or early Sri Lanka, which is surprising as some
consider Pali to be the language of the Buddha and Theravada as being
exactly what the Buddha preached.

The commentaries are said to have been composed from the 5th century onwards
and these contain quotes etc from the Suttas - but apparently they do not
always match up and some quotes are unable to be found in todays Tipitaka.
How do we know what the Tipitaka was like before this? was it added to,
changed, or subtracted from? Even after Buddhagosha how do we know what
editing occurred?

Then there are the constant councils held throughout history, the last one
being in Burma in 1956. These were held partially to fix errors in the canon
and commentaries.

There are also variations in existing old manuscripts, considerable
variations I believe. eg a Sutta in manuscript form in Thailand may not be
exactly the same as one found in Sri Lanka. Often these are minor, but they
are still discrepancies.

So how do we really know?

Bankei