Disputed Statements

Chapter 27, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 27 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 28, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 28 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 29, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 29 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 3, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 3 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 30, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 30 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 31, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 31 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 32, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 32 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 33, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 33 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 34, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 34 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 35, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 35 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 36, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 36 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 37, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 37 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 38, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 38 of 81, in the De part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 39, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 39 of 81, in the De part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 4, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 4 of 81, in the Dao part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 40, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 40 of 81, in the De part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 41, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 41 of 81, in the De part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 42, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 42 of 81, in the De part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 43, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 43 of 81, in the De part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1

Chapter 44, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 44 of 81, in the De part of the received text

Robert G. Henricks's translation (Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Ballantine Books, 1989) compared the received chapter numbering against two excavated manuscript witnesses: the Mawangdui silk texts, recovered from a Han-dynasty tomb near Changsha and dated to the second century BCE, and the Guodian bamboo slips, excavated near Jingmen and dated to around 300 BCE. The comparison found the Mawangdui texts place the De material before the Dao material, reversing the received order, and that the Guodian slips hold only about a third of the received material with no division into the received chapters at all. Because the received numbering appears in neither older witness, Henricks's philological comparison concludes it is a later editorial convenience rather than a feature of how the text was composed, which is why the atlas treats the chapter number as a reliable citation address and not as a claim about original structure.

Source Lao Tzu: Te-Tao Ching, A New Translation Based on the Recently Discovered Ma-wang-tui Texts, Robert G. Henricks tier 1