Disputed Statements

Chapter 63, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 63 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 64, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 64 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 65, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 65 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 66, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 66 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 67, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 67 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 68, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 68 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 69, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 69 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 7, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 7 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 70, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 70 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 71, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 71 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 72, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 72 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 73, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 73 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 74, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 74 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 75, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 75 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 76, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 76 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 77, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 77 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 78, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 78 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 79, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 79 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 8, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 8 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 80, Scripture Portions

Standing Scholarly debate

Concerns Position in the Canon

Currently States Chapter 80 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