《尚書》在流衍的過程中產生許多問題，乾嘉學者認為透過考據的方法，才能夠探究《尚書》原始典籍的意義，因此他們對《尚書》的考據相當熱衷。舉凡山川、名物、地理之外，對亡佚經文的輯校也是乾嘉學者治學的重點。本文討論乾嘉學者江聲、王鳴盛及孫星衍三家對於〈太誓〉經文的輯校內容，到經文輯校的共識與細部歧異，分析三家在輯校〈太誓〉經文時的考量，並進一步釐清乾嘉學者在史料取捨背後的思考脈絡。乾嘉學者在輯校〈太誓〉時，對材料的來源有共同的理解，使得他們不約而同的以《史記》及《大傳》為輯校的底本，輔以其他典籍，構成他們心目中〈太誓〉應當有的模樣，這種共識則根本自他們認為漢代儒者「近聖未遠」的信念。

There were many problems during the spread of Book. QianJia Scholars thought only through textual research, the meaning of Book could been explored. Thus, QianJia Scholars were enthusiastic about textual research of Book. Mountains, rivers, etiquette, geography and the editing of lost Scripture were all the points in the scholarship of QianJia Scholars. This article discuss on the consensus, points and difference of QianJia Scholars: Jiang Sheng, Wang Mingcheng, Sun Xingyan, when they edited ”Tai Shi”. Further, this article would clarify the logic that QianJia Scholars using historical data or not, through analysing the consideration when they edited this scripture. When QianJia Scholars edited ”Tai Shi”, they had common understanding to the sources of historical data. Therefore, they edited ”Tai Shi” with The Grand Scribe's Records and Shangshu Da Chuan coincidentally. These Consensus were due to QianJia Scholars beliefing that Scholars in Han Dynasty were close to Confucius.