Truth: Confucius's murder of Shao Zhengdi does not exist

Confucius's killing of Shao Zhengdi did not exist.

Sources record that Confucius served as a sikou and "took pictures". Si Kou was the largest official Confucius had ever served in the State of Lu. The "regent" is not acting prime minister, but temporarily accompanies the monarch in some or some foreign affairs, responsible for the presiding over the ceremonial activities, to put it bluntly, it is also the chief emcee in diplomatic etiquette. The biggest official position that Confucius really held was Si Kou, who was the official in charge of state security, and his status was lower than that of Sanhuan.

As the de facto ruler of the State of Lu, Sanhuan held the power of life and death in the State of Lu. Even the Three Huans generally did not arbitrarily kill noble officials of lower status than them, and they could only kill doctors in the name of the monarch, and they had to clearly record in the state archives for sufficient reasons, Confucius was not qualified to do such a thing.

Lu Shi's "Zuo Biography" does not record a single incident in which Lu Guo killed the doctor, but rather records the killing of the doctor by some of the States such as Qi Jinwei Zheng Song. Moreover, Lu Guo did not have the official position of "Shaozheng" at all, and "Shaozheng" never appeared in the "Zuo Zhuan", let alone a record of "Shaozheng". Of the princely states, only Zheng Guo had the official position of "Shaozheng". Regarding the killing of Shao Zhengdi, it first appeared in the book "Xunzi" in the late Warring States period, and its authenticity was not credible.

When Confucius was serving as the Secretary of the State of Lu, zheng guo had the incident of the ruling secretary Of State slaughtering the jurist Deng Yan, and later generations often attached Deng Yan's murder to his descendants. The so-called Confucius killing Shao Zhengdi may have come from this incident by false rumors. Xun Zi and Sima Qian praised Confucius and believed that "killing Shao Zhengdi" was a saint's rule of adultery, so they wrote this non-existent thing into the book and recorded it in the annals of history, and the result became a pretext for the descendants who despised Confucius.

At that time, the killing of the doctor by the various princely states was a major event, and Lu Shi's "Zuo Zhuan" even recorded such things in other princely states, so why didn't even the clues disappear?

When Kong was alive, he had not yet formed a climate of controversy among a hundred schools of thought; apart from Confucius's establishment of private education, no highly learned person had yet to preach any doctrine, and it was impossible for the Shao Zhengdi of the Later Generations to run schools and give lectures and confuse the world.

Confucius was a very open man, indispensable; he was also a man who did not complain when he was alive. Moreover, Confucius advocated benevolent government, promoted the royal way, and opposed indiscriminate killing.

In the study of history, the most evidenceable data should be the "data" (documents) at that time, and the stories of the past lives told by later generations will inevitably be tampered with intentionally or unintentionally, and even Sima Qian's "Records of History" records the historical facts of the Spring and Autumn Period, which has many mistakes, let alone telling stories. Literary works, fabricated stories, cannot be used as arguments.

During the Southern Song Dynasty, Zhu Xi expressed doubts about this matter, and Mr. Qian Mu made a detailed analysis of this matter in the "Examination of the Year of the Sons of the Pre-Qin Dynasty" in the article "Confucius Xing Regent Affair And Lu Dafu Shao zheng wei discernment", which was convincing.

Text/Chen Guangkui