The Humble Origins of China’s Sacred Texts

The term “jing” (经), now revered as denoting Confucian classics embodying eternal truths, originally bore a far more mundane meaning – simply “thread.” This linguistic clue reveals the pragmatic beginnings of what would become China’s most sacred texts. In antiquity, when records were kept on bamboo slips, longer works required multiple strips bound together with threads. These thread-bound collections of frequently referenced texts gradually acquired the name “jing,” devoid of any mystical connotations in their earliest form.

Archaeological evidence shows bamboo slip texts from the Warring States period (475-221 BCE) typically contained about 20-30 characters per slip, with longer works requiring sophisticated binding systems. The physical constraints of these materials shaped classical Chinese’s famously concise style. The transition from practical reference works to canonical scriptures mirrors the transformation of Confucianism from one school of thought among many to state orthodoxy.

The Formation of the Confucian Canon

The earliest reference to the “Six Classics” appears in the Daoist text Zhuangzi (4th century BCE), listing the Poetry (Shi), Documents (Shu), Rites (Li), Music (Yue), Spring and Autumn Annals (Chunqiu), and Changes (Yi). By Han dynasty historian Ban Gu’s time (32-92 CE), these were called the “Six Arts,” though the Music Classic had already been lost, reducing them to the “Five Classics.”

The Tang dynasty (618-907) saw further expansion, dividing the Spring and Autumn Annals into three commentaries and the Rites into three ritual texts, creating the “Nine Classics.” The Song dynasty (960-1279) added four more texts, culminating in the “Thirteen Classics” that became the standard Confucian canon. Zhu Xi’s (1130-1200) selection of the Four Books (Great Learning, Doctrine of the Mean, Analects, and Mencius) as examination texts cemented their status as Confucianism’s core curriculum for nearly a millennium.

The Classics as Historical Artifacts

Qing scholar Zhang Xuecheng (1738-1801) famously declared “the Six Classics are all history.” This perspective reveals the texts’ diverse historical value:

– The Documents (Shu) records speeches and decrees
– The Spring and Autumn Annals chronicles events
– The Rites preserves institutional history
– The Poetry’s Airs (Guofeng) reflects folk customs
– The Changes contains religious and intellectual history

Modern scholars recognize these texts as products of their times. The Documents, once believed to record Xia (2070-1600 BCE) and Shang (1600-1046 BCE) dynasty history, is now understood to contain Zhou dynasty (1046-256 BCE) compositions projecting contemporary ideas onto the past. The Poetry’s 305 surviving songs (from an alleged original 3,000) provide invaluable insights into early Chinese society, from agricultural practices in “July” (Bin Feng) to social discontent in “Great East” (Xiao Ya).

Philosophical Foundations in the Classics

The Changes (Yi Jing), with its hexagram system, presents a worldview of constant transformation within fixed patterns. Its three principles – simplicity (the universe follows discernible patterns), change (constant flux), and persistence (cyclical rather than linear progression) – profoundly influenced Chinese thought.

The Documents’ “Great Plan” (Hong Fan) chapter outlines an early philosophical system based on the five elements (water, fire, wood, metal, earth) and nine categories of governance. The Rites texts (Zhou Li, Yi Li, Li Ji) preserve detailed records of aristocratic ceremonies while articulating Confucian social ideals that would shape Chinese culture for millennia.

The Politics of Textual Transmission

The Qin dynasty’s (221-206 BCE) infamous “burning of books” nearly eradicated the classics. Han dynasty scholars reconstructed texts from memory and hidden caches, creating the “New Text” tradition written in contemporary script. Later discoveries of pre-Qin versions in archaic script spawned the “Old Text” school. These factions clashed over:

– Confucius’s status (sage-king vs. teacher)
– The classics’ nature (philosophical works vs. historical records)
– Interpretative methods (esoteric vs. philological)

The New Text school, emphasizing the Spring and Autumn Annals’ Gongyang Commentary, dominated early Han official learning. The Old Text school, championed by Liu Xin (d. 23 CE), gained influence through scholars like Zheng Xuan (127-200), whose synthetic commentaries became standard.

From Classical Learning to State Orthodoxy

Han Emperor Wu’s (r. 141-87 BCE) establishment of the “Five Classics” doctorate made mastery of these texts the path to officialdom. The Tang dynasty’s unified commentaries (Zheng Xuan and Kong Yingda’s Wujing Zhengyi) became examination standards. Song Neo-Confucians like Zhu Xi reinterpreted the classics through a philosophical lens, while Qing evidential scholars returned to rigorous textual analysis.

The late Qing saw Kang Youwei (1858-1927) revive New Text interpretations to justify reform, claiming Confucius as a political innovator. This marked the classics’ final transformation before their displacement by modern academic disciplines.

The Classics in Modern Perspective

Today, these texts are studied primarily as historical documents rather than living scriptures. Their value lies in what they reveal about China’s intellectual and social development rather than as sources of eternal truths. As the “thread-bound books” of antiquity became the “permanent way” of empire before returning to their status as historical artifacts, their journey mirrors China’s own transformation from ancient kingdoms to modern nation.