Is Laozi a syncretic text whose primary body of ideas were cobbled together from multiple and various sources, none of which can reasonably be identified as Daoist, or is it a synthetic text whose ideas emerged from a single source that for all intents embodies the core elements of a tradition that meets the standards of inclusion for a tradition of early Daoism? The present work examines the key points of Hongkyung Kim’s sophisticated account of Laozi’s origins as a syncretic text. It then goes on to present the key points of what would have to be involved in its original circulations as a synthetic text. It concludes by suggesting a middle ground that is able to explain why an originally synthetic Laozi is all too easily read by modern scholars as a syncretic text.