敦煌文獻出土後，矢吹慶輝是第一位發現敦煌禪籍的人，現今『大正藏』所收金的古逸禪籍幾乎都是他於1916及1922的成果。而利用敦煌禪籍在禪宗史的研究上有所突破的則是胡適，胡適在1926-1927年發現神會語錄與楞伽師資記等文獻後，便積極滿事研究，1935年的〈楞伽宗考〉是胡適利用敦煌出土禪籍寫成的早期禪宗小史。鈴木大拙正是在胡適的批評下認識敦煌禪籍，並進而產生興趣。當胡適擔駐美大使期間，鈴木大扭雖然積極地研究敦煌禪籍，但第一個根據敦煌文獻完成禪宗史的卻是宇井伯壽。宇井利用當年《大正藏》收錄矢吹慶輝的禪籍，早一步出版《禪宗史研究》。 敦煌禪籍與其他經典一樣，都有偽造的問題，天臺僧侶關口大考證了幾篇題名菩提達摩諭的寫本，釐清文獻的作者。這份批判的精神到了六十年代，由柳田聖山發揮的淋漓靈致，於《初期禪宗史書の研究》論述敦煌文獻中祖統說的起源與發展，並提出「西天二十八祖」的原型出自《法如行狀》。 1969年錢穆一場關於惠能的演講論文引發了臺日天地的禪學論戰，討論的焦點正是胡適提出《壇經》作者的質疑，此一論戰醞釀出印順的《中國禪宗史》。而此時日本學界卻開始注意敦煌的藏文禪籍，以上山大竣為首的日本學者，不但積極翻譯藏文寫本，也為禪宗入藏的問題開啟另一條研究之路。而對中國禪宗史而言，利用藏譯本《頓悟真宗要決》復原漢文完整版，是八十、九十年代改寫禪宗史的重要證據。 到了1983-1984年間，三本影響深遠的博士論文，是田中良昭的「敦煌禪宗文獻の研究」、John R. McRae的The Northern School of Chinese Chan Buddhism，和Bernard Faure的The Will to Orthodoxy-A Critical Genealogy of Northern Chan Buddhsim。三人的文章中利用不同的方法證明北宗是頓，而其中最重要的關鍵是確認《頓悟真宗要決》的作者與成書年代。

The Dunhuang manuscripts were discovered by Sir Aurel Stein and Paul Pelliot, Yabuki Keiki was the forerunner in the study of Chan manuscripts from Dunhuang. Those Chan manuscripts were embodied in Ta Cheng Tsang Vol. 48, 51, 85. In 1926, Hu Shih found other Dunhuang documents on Chan. After returning in 1927 from Europe, Hu Shih published numbers of essays on early Chan during the years 1927-1935. Based on the Shenhui’s “Dialogues” and Lengqie shizi ji, Hu Shih set a new track-the Lańkāvatāra School. Because of Hu Shih’s criticism, D.T.Suzuki developed an interest in the Dunhuang manuscripts. Even Suzuki found a lot of the Dunhuang manuscripts on Northern School, he still believed in traditionalistic approaches. When Hu Shih was appointed ambassador to U.S.A., Suzuki worked hardly in looking for the Dunhuang manuscripts, Ui Hakuju published the The History of Chan Buddhism which was the first book suing the Dunhuang manuscripts. From 1932 to 1957, Sekiguchi Shindai proved that some apocryphal Bodhidharma’s Treatises were fakes. In the sixties, the historical criticism of Chan developed form Yanagida Seizan. Researches on the Historiographical works of Early Chan discussed that the origin of genealogical model should be the Chan master Fa-ju. As Chan texts, those Dunhuang manuscripts developed the structure of the “Transmission of the Lamp” histories. In 1969, Qian Mu’s disquisition accounted for a war of words in Taiwan. Yin Shun was stimulated by the questionof Platform Sūtra ‘s author. In the same time, Japanese scholars started to focused on Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang. Ueyama Daishun translated the documents of Pelliot. 116, completed the Essential Determination. A new turn happened in 1983-1984, it was about there doctoral dissertations. Tanaka Ryosho’s The Study of Dunhuang documents on Chan, John R. McRae’s The Northern School of Chinese Chan Buddhism, Bernard Faure’s The Will to Orthodoxy-A Critical Genealogy of Northern Chan Buddhism. Based on Treatise on the True Principle and the Essential Determination, they tried to proved that the Northern School was sutbitism.