本文對比戴震、焦循二人，於經典詮釋方法上的異同，指出二人不論在經史考證，或經典詮釋上的發揮，均各有對比於前哲的變貌轉化；故二人之注經進路，雖可涵括於總體的考據範圍內，卻不限於考據，實不宜僅以漢學詮釋概括言之。
戴、焦二人皆不斷強調經典詮釋及理解的重要，或言心知、性靈，或倡善述、聞道，通過學人社會、學圈僚友及著作的研精交誼，深化所思所得，透過編修、纂注經籍，或專書著作，建構個人思想的表現。由此觀察，亦可進一步彰明乾嘉經典詮釋的特殊風貌。

This paper attempts to compare the similarities and differences between Dai Zhen’s and Jiao Xun’s way of interpreting classics, pointing out that they respectively differ from their predecessors in interpretation and evidential studies of classic texts. Their annotation of classic texts can be included in, yet not confine to, the field of evidential studies, so it is not proper to merely classify their annotation under Han-learning interpretation.
Both Dai Zhen and Jiao Xun constantly emphasize the importance of interpreting and understanding classics. They believe that one’s disposition and soul are the focuses of learning classic texts, and so are good explanation of the texts and realization of “Tao.” One can also deepen the learning by exchanging ideas within circle of scholars and colleagues; still, one can construct personal thinking by editing and annotating classic texts or writing books. Their belief reveals the special feature of the classic interpretation during Qian-Jia period.