自上海博物館藏楚竹書《孔子詩論》刊布以來，引起學界高度重視，一時間發表的論文甚多，見諸各書刊、報章、網站等。本文由臺灣大學中國文學系五位同仁共同撰作，一方面針對學者已發表的若干論點提出修正意見，另方面也揭舉他人尚未觸及的問題。全文共分六則：一、主張所謂《孔子詩論》宜正名為「《詩論》」，理由在於本篇內容不全屬孔子言論。二、主張《詩論》使用墨節的方式不盡謹嚴，故不宜目之為分篇斷章的確切符號。三、主張《詩論》並不存在先《頌》次《雅》後《風》的編序問題。四、主張「□」字應讀為「吝」，「詩無吝志」意思是詩中沒有鄙吝之志。五、對於「其言有所載而後納，或前之而後交，人不可干也」詳加闡釋，深入說明了此段文字所涉古代賓贈之禮的細微內涵。六、論《詩論》的出士可以驗讀宋人所謂「漠儒竄雜淫詩」說法之不可信。

Ever since its publication, the bamboo pamphlet from ancient Chu "Confucians' Shi Jing Review," one of the important collections of National Shanghai Museum in China, has caused highly interested attention among researchers. A lot of discussion can be seen all a□r□ss ewspapers, magazines, and on the web. This article, written by a group of five researchers from Department of Chinese Literature in National Taiwan University, is an attempt to provide both revision of previous findings on this ancient document, as well as some new findings from the authors. It contains the following six arguments: 1. Instead of "Confucians' Shi Jing Review," the pamphlet should be named "Shi Jing Review," the reason being that different philosophers, other than Confucius, contributed to the reviews. 2. Mall-Jays, the black - ink symbols which formerly thought to be used as separating chapters of this document, were not accurately and consistently used for that purpose. Therefore, their function should not be defined as separating chapters. 3. The editing of this document didn't follow the order of "Sung," "Yia," and "Fung." 4. This character " □ " should be pronounced as "Ling." "Shi Wu Ling Jui" means that there is no sentiment of stinginess in Shi Jing. 5. Description of the rite of gift giving and receiving between important visitors and the host in the twentieth section of the document is discussed in detail, which threw new lights on related issues. 6. The research of this document found that Sung Scholars' opinion "Scholar-s in Han Dynasty mixed nasty poems in Shi Jing" is not true.