The Original Text of the Daodejing: Disentangling Versions and Recensions

Abstract

The Daodejing is counted among the greatest works of world philosophy and literature, but it is a short work that is exceedingly difficult to comprehend. Among several reasons for this is that no one knows the actual words and form of its original text. Assessing the differences between any two editions of it is a simple task when they are laid next to each other, but it is not possible to lay any edition of the Daodejing next to its original text to assess their differences, because no one has ever seen the original text of the Daodejing, and no one knows its actual words and form. Approaching the original text is only made possible through its representations and reflections in later editions that we do possess, some of them transmitted and others excavated. Any possible access to the original text, to any degree whatsoever, is dependent on how these later editions are managed. Sinology manages them with the recension category whereas Laozi Studies manages them with the version category. This study examines, disentangles, and assesses the different ways that these two categories are used with the intended effect of revealing the original text of the Daodejing.

Laozi’s Conception of Justice in the Daodejing: Distinguishing the Constant Dao from the Dao of Heaven

“…The Daodejing presents no single, systematic philosophical system. In fact, I have argued elsewhere that the received text's philosophy of the Constant Dao is radically at odds with the Guodian Laozi's philosophy of the Temporalizing Dao (heng dao 恒道) (Michael 2022b). Nevertheless, given their aphoristic format, neither version on its own can be said to present a systematic philosophical system; that work belonged to the long line of Daodejing commentaries and exegesis.…”

Reexamining the Different Paths to the Dao of the Daodejing

“…This version circulated until the end of the Warring States period. Accordingly, the Yangsheng version could be most proximate to the original text of the Daodejing (Michael 2022).…”

“…Accordingly, we can say that although this work has undergone so many additions, changes, annotations, and translations, it has not been derogated but enriched. In other words, we should not judge any particular edition or version of the Daodejing as more faithful to the original text, nor any particular interpretation of the authentic text as more correct, just as Thomas Michael states (Michael 2022).…”

“…There are three main categories of the global study of the Daodejing 道德經 (or Laozi 老子) 1 : Laozi studies, sinological study, and philosophical study. Each category distinguishes itself by research intentions and methodologies (Michael 2022). In this article, we do not limit our research to any specific category but utilize all of their existing results.…”

“…See (Li 2015, p. 885). For a collection of the early editions, see (Michael 2022); for a collection of English translations, see the (Terebess Asia Online 2022); for a complete bibliography of interlingual and intercultural translations of Laozi, see (Tadd 2019). 9 Qiu Xigui points out that there are textual differences between group jia and Group bing of the bamboo slips edition, which shows that there was already more than one kind of the Daodejing in circulation around 4BC.-3BC.…”