Michael Loewe has repeatedly and as recently as 2021 looked at how Confucius appears in Han sources and has drawn attention to his lack of prominence, at least to the degree one might expect. Here, a preliminary assessment of the sources of opposition to Buddhism in one key sixth-century c.e. collection of polemics further demonstrates that adherence to mingjiao 名教 (Teaching of a Good Name) or to lijiao 禮教 (teaching on ritual) appears there as the main identifiers of opponents; rujiao, the term often later translated as “Confucianism,” is mentioned but once. While the commitment to values such as filial piety promoted by opponents of Buddhism is clear; their institutional coherence and self-awareness as a group does not seem to have been at all on a par with that of the Buddhist community. That situation did not start to shift until the Tang dynasty.

Investigating textual parallels between pre-Qin writings such as Han Feizi and Lüshi chunqiu and Confucius's statement in Lun yu 13.18 that “a father covers up for his son and a son for his father,” this article argues that the Lun yu passage is most likely derived from the version in Lüshi chunqiu or a closely related version. This has several consequences for scholarly interpretations of the Lun yu. It serves as a reminder that the Lun yu is a heterogeneous collection of textual units drawn from sometimes unexpected sources. It also demonstrates that the Lun yu should be read not in isolation but against the widest possible background of pre-Qin and Han parallels.

In the final part, the article reviews some of the comparisons between Confucius in Lun yu 13.18 and Socrates in Plato's “Euthyphro,” cautioning against over-interpretations of the extremely terse statement attributed to Confucius. A more fruitful way of reading Lun yu 13.18, it is argued, would be to historicize the passage by contextualizing it within the social and legal history of the late Warring States and Han periods.