Posts
I’m working on new project tentatively titled, A Soldier in Armor Does not Bow: Classical
Debates on War and Government Beyond Sun-Tzu. Sunzi (Sun-Tzu) tends to overshadow the rest
of the commentary on classic Chinese military theory. The translations are too
many to count and just the famous ones include Giles, Griffith, Cleary and
Sawyer. And this is before getting into various proliferating boutique editions
sold at major book stores.
But this focus on Sunzi borders on obsession and it blinds
the general public to the many more works in existences, hinders those with
academic training in military theory from the rich potential of the rest of the
corpus, and the texts beyond Sunzi are often ignored by the majority of
scholars who specialize in these texts and instead focus their research on the
ethical, metaphysical, and literary qualities inside them. Xunzi is an
excellent example of this trend. He was one of the most influential and
sophisticated philosophers in pre imperial China and is the subject of dozens
of books and essays. Yet there is no work that devotes significant attention to
Xunzi's military theories, despite the fact he thought the topic of armed
conflict enough important to devote an entire treatise to it.
The project will take advantage of my academic study in
Chinese military history, an extensive background in general military thought
including both ancient and modern thinkers, and the increasing number of
English translations of seminal volumes that remained to be studied. These include new translations of the Mozi,
the Dao De Jing, the Analects of Confucious (Kong Fuzi), Seven Military
Classics, Huainanzi, Sun Bin’s Art of War, Shizi, Guanzi, Mencius, Xunzi, Yi
Zhou Shu, the Pheasant Cap Master of Heguanzi and the so called "lost
classics" of the Yellow Emperor. When combined with the existing the Book
of Lord Shang, Han Feizi and fragments or excerpts from the works of thinkers
like Shen Puhai and Jia Yi this becomes a sold corpus. Taken together they
cover a broad spectrum of Chinese thought and debate among Confucianists,
Legalists, Daoists, the methods of Shen Pu Hai and their various combinations
and synthesis.
Despite being publicly available, some of them for close to
100 years, very little has been done to systematically assess and evaluate
these texts. Focusing on Sunzi to the detriment of the rest of the military
thought is a tragedy. That misplaced focus fails to recognize that moral
questions that governments wrestled with. Sunzi’s focus on purely rational
calculation obscures the debate around moral matters that many writers contend
strengthened both the government and soldiers. In some places, Sunzi’s advice
directly contradicts sound commands regarding the conducts of army towards
civilians, and the treatment of soldiers. Important concepts such as shih and
weighing (quan) are elaborated much more fully in other texts. The misplaced focus also ignores the history
of the China and its application. Many leaders such as those that unified China
in the 2nd century BC and the Kaangxi Emperor of the late 18th century AD
respectively used other theories and called the classics like Sunzi
“worthless.”
As part of that project I’ve seen a good deal of material
that can be applied to the Book of Mormon
and our study of it.
1
Why Study? This quote
supplies advice about the role of knowledge in sharpening oneself and its
relationship to warfare.
Learning is like sharpening. Suppose fine
copper from Mount Kunwu and excellent tin from zhufu are worked by the famous
blacksmiths of Gan and Yue and forged into a sword. Yet if they do not use both
fine and course whetstones on it, then when using it to stab it will not enter,
and when using it to slash, it will not cut…Nowadays, people all know to
sharpen swords, but no one knows to sharpen themselves. Learning is the
sharpening of the self.[1]
If you change sharpen swords to being a
jerk on social media it is even more insightful. Now that I think about it,
this quote, “Nowadays, people all know how to be a jerk, but no one knows how to
learn” sounds like something that would be posted on the archways at facebook.
2 The authorship of historic texts: The man named
Guanzi is thought to have lived in the 7th century BC. But his
writings weren’t complied until about 26BC and his writings contain a great
deal of material that responds to contemporary debates in the late warring
states period. This has led to debates among different theories that are repeated
in some measure in regards to almost every text.
The two extremes range from it being written
by Guanzi or entirely written by somebody else. The middle views are more
nuanced and include a corpus of older material that was added by later scholars
or disciples. Another theory is that writings from a certain school were
written in Guanzi’s name or attributed to him by the editor of his works in
26BC. This means that different authors wrote texts that discussed good
ministry, authoritative Confucianism, and good policies towards the people and
the unknown authors sought more authority for their works by invoking Guanzi’s
name, or it was a way to classify them and the Guanzi School simply became
Guanzi.
This has the most application regarding the
Book of Abraham. I’m basically familiar with the issues regarding the Book of
Abraham though I can’t say exactly how much of the above about Guanzi applies
to this. The LDS
gospel topics essays says, “[Abraham] is the author not the copyist” which
implies that the line, “by my own hand,” in the introduction is a bit more
nuanced. This might inspire critics to say that apologists are stretching or
twisting to explain away uncomfortable facts when I can read the same debate
about almost 30 different ancient texts. So I can say it’s really pretty normal
to assume that ancient writings have rather complicated provenance and the Book
of Abraham, as an assumed ancient writing, is no different.
3 Anachronisms: This is a favorite hobby horse (or
Tapir) of critics but it’s similarly flawed when viewed from a historical
perspective. The one that popped out to me the most was an argument from Tai Kong.
This text was supposedly written in the later Zhou Dynasty around the 10th
century BC. But then this ancient Tai Kong directly addresses a specific
problem to the latter Warring States Period:
“When the people are not engaged in
agriculture and sericulture but instead give rein to their tempers and travel
about as bravados, disdaining and transgressing the laws and prohibitions, not
following the instructions of officials, it harms the king’s transforming
influence.”[2]
These are the same types of individuals
that legalists like Han Feizi criticized.[3]
They were viewed as honorable people but they didn’t fight for the state and
actually undermined it so they were often criticized by government officials.
The response to this isn’t that the book is
a clear forgery that now has no use. Going back to point one the explanation
depends on who you ask. But it could very well be that later writers added
things to a core text which introduced the anachronisms. Most anti Mormon critics
tend to move the book quickly into the total fraud category, but an alternate
explanation is that this represents the long provenance of the book going
through the hands of difference editors (such as Joseph Smith translating
Mormon’s translation of Ether.)
4 Related to the anachronisms was the moral
outrage over violence and how it contribution to the texts and how people viewed
the authenticity of them: Confucians
such as Mencius were quick to disqualify texts like the Tai Kong over their
anachronisms because its depiction of brutal violence, spy craft like
corrupting with women, and revolutionary nature made it unsalable for
Confucians. Sunzi was often criticized because he didn’t seem to care about
morality like Confucians did. Guanzi, the good Confucian minister advocated for
proper treatment of the people, Sunzi said cast them into hopeless situations
in order to stimulate the greatest effort. Sunzi said that warfare was the
greatest affair of state but many others would argue that it was the altars of
state that was most important.[4]
To the utter horror of Confucian
historians the Yi Zhou Shu included how a conquering ruler cut off over 1
million ears and captured another 3 million.[5]
The point is that editors tell the stories
they want to and often make judgements about the veracity of documents based on
their personal beliefs. These judgements can be seen by carefully looking at
what is included and how it’s included. Before you start to say there I go
again, this is the same methodology that Grant Hardy employed when he pointed
out the long digression after Nephi comes back with the plates and similar
inferences that can be made about Nephi’s actions.
Hardy discussed how Nephi came back from
killing Laban and obtaining the plates. Instead of recording Lehi’s reactions
it does something really unusual, it details the words of Sariah, and then it
says how Lehi made an offering for sacrifice. By reading the text critically
and looking at what was included and not included we might tentatively believe,
according to Hardy, that Lehi did not approve of Nephi’s actions. The larger point
is that a careful reading of the text suggests possible unintended consequences
and actions that Mormon (once we leave the plates of Nephi) often tried to
massage away from the text. This doesn’t hurt the text but should increase our appreciation
of it.
5 Answering Questions that Weren’t Asked: One of
the most rewarding aspects of my work is finding that the Book of Mormon
actually answers great questions that I never asked until I started reading
these Chinese texts. I’ve posted these previously on my blog so I won’t repeat
them here. But you can find much more about battlefield
morality and the role
of ritual in camp. I’ve got a paper
based on this submitted for an upcoming conference so I hope I can present this
to a larger audience.
Those are the major factors that apply to the Book of Mormon. My extensive readings
and specific examples I provide are reasons why I find the criticisms of both
anti Mormons and fundamentalists rather shallow. They often stem from a lack of
knowledge and inappropriate use of the limited knowledge they do have. Its too
often scholarship warped into a narrow pursuit, which is why I’m so excited
about this book that will bring classical Chinese military theory to a much
wider audience.
Thanks for reading. I work as a freelance author so if found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or buying one of my books. It will help me continue my research so I can bring you more of these. Thank you!
*********
[1] Shizi: China’s First Syncretist, Paul Fischer
trans., (Columbia University Press, 2012,) 58.
[2] The
Six Secret Teachings of Tai Kong, in The
Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, Ralph Sawyer trans., (Westview
Press, 1993), 48.
[3] Han Feizi Basic Writings, Burton Watson
trans., (Columbia University Press, 2003,) 106.
[4]
Tai Kong, Seven Military Classics, 64;
Sun Pin Military Methods, Ralph
Sawyer trans., Westview Press, 1995. 84; Five Lost
Classics: Tao, Huanglao, and YingYang in Han China, Robin Yates trans., (New
York City, Ballantine Books, 1997) 57; Han, Watson, 50; Basic Writings of Xunzi, Burton Watson trans., (Columbia University
Press, 1963,) 71, Wuzi, Seven
Classics, 206.
[5] Robine
McNeal, To Conquer and Govern: Early
Chinese Military Texts from the Yi Zho Shu, (University of Hawaii Press,
2012), 94.
