Ekottaragama, 384 A.D. But the evidence of inscriptions[776] shows
that works known as Nikayas existed in the third century B.C. The
Sanskrit of the Agamas, so far as it is known from the fragments found
in Central Asia, does not suggest that they belong to this epoch, but
is compatible with the theory that they date from the time of Kanishka
of which if we know little, we can at least say that it produced much
Buddhist Sanskrit literature. M. Sylvain Levi has suggested that the
later appearance of the complete Vinaya in Chinese is due to the late
compilation of the Sanskrit original.[777] It seems to me that other
explanations are possible. The early translators were clearly shy of
extensive works and until there was a considerable body of Chinese
monks, to what public would these theological libraries appeal? Still,
if any indication were forthcoming from India or Central Asia that the
Sanskrit Agamas were arranged or rearranged in the early centuries of
our era, the late date of the Chinese translations would certainly
support it. But I am inclined to think that the Nikayas were rewritten
in Sanskrit about the beginning of our era, when it was felt that
works claiming a certain position ought to be composed in what had
become the general literary language of India.[778] Perhaps those
who wrote them in Sanskrit were hardly conscious of making a
translation in our sense, but simply wished to publish them in the
best literary form.

It seems probable that the Hinayanist portion of the Chinese Tripitaka
is in the main a translation of the Canon of the Sarvastivadins which
must have consisted of:

(1) Four Agamas or Nikayas only, for the Dhammapada
is placed outside the Sutta Pitaka.

(2) A voluminous Vinaya covering the same ground as the
Pali recension but more copious in legend and anecdote.

(3) An Abhidharma entirely different from the Pali works
bearing this name.

It might seem to follow from this that the whole Pali Abhidharma and
some important works such as the Thera-Therigatha were unknown to the
Hinayanists of Central Asia and Northern India in the early centuries
of our era. But caution is necessary in drawing such inferences, for
until recently it might have been said that the Sutta Nipata also was
unknown, whereas fragments of it in a Sanskrit version have now been
discovered in Eastern Turkestan.[779] The Chinese editors draw a clear
distinction between Hinayanist and Mahayani