The debate between New Text and Old Text (Jinwen and Guwen) proponents was a great event in Han dynasty's classical studies. Jia Kui edited the Zuozhuan, but sometimes he abandoned Zuozhuan positions and preferred those of the Gongyangzhuan. The reasons for this have definite relations with the logic of the debate within classical studies. By approaching the body of cases where Jia Kui supported Gongyang-based interpretations from this point of view, many aspects of his decisions can be explained. By tracing out the variations in the academic status of the Zuozhuan over the Han dynasty, it is not difficult to find that the logic of the discourse process reflected the changing relations of mutual explication which were posited between the classics and their commentaries. The ways of making the classics intelligible by appealing to the commentaries, and vice versa, did not always follow the logic of the issues; instead, one often finds cases where the explanation went far beyond the purview of the positions investigated. In this sense, the differences between Zuozhuan and Gongyang are not over the facts they record but are the results of different, artificially taken, viewpoints about these interpretive relations. In other words, the difference of standpoint is secondary but the policies of annotation are the main issues in the controversy. In some instances, when Jia Kui criticized Gongyang, the position he criticized was at odds with the real ideas of the Gongyang commentary; and this straw man is what he attacked. We call this a use of ""pretended falsehoods'' in debates on the classical works. This usage, and the mutual dependency of commentaries and classics, provide other perspectives to think about the problems of the history of the classics in Han dynasty.