An Existential Reading of the Confucian Analects By Andrew Zhon ...

As far as the style is concerned, section 10 does stand out as unique: its record of ritual details performed by Confucius does not seem to fit the general purpose of the work. It is possible that this section serves as a marker separating the first ten sections from the second ten, but this alone does not provide definitive evidence as to how much time separates these two parts. Indeed, it is possible that after the first ten sections had been completed, Zengzi’s disciples discovered additional records of Confucius’s sayings from another of the master’s immediate disciples and simply appended them to the original ten sections.

Cui Shu’s Criticism

Cui Shu (; 1740–1816), in the spirit of skepticism that reigned in his day, further dissected the last ten sections and separated them into two discrete layers, with sections 16–20 the more recent layers. His general argument is that these last five sections are characterized by a style inconsistent with more authentic sections, that the nature of the sayings they record is incompatible with the philosophy of a sage, and that these sections contain an unusual use of a given name to address Confucius or include some infelicity of language.³¹

The problem with Cui Shu’s argument lies in his unwarranted assumptions. He assumed that the style of the Analects should be the same throughout the work. But because the work is a compilation of records written by various disciples whose use of words would surely have varied, a unified style should not be expected. Cui further assumed that everything that Confucius said should be the words of a sage. And yet sage is very hard to define. In Confucius’s own conception, a sage is, above all else, a human being. In other words, a sage might act very humanly. Finally, the differences in style and infelicities of language indicate not that these portions of text are inauthentic but rather that the Analects in