北宋邢昺《孝經注疏》疏云:「先儒以為『居家理』下闕一『故』字,《御注》加之」,清儒臧庸以此指摘唐本「增經」之非,嚴可均、皮錫瑞等更指斥《御注》臆刪〈庶人章〉經文「己」字,指摘玄宗以己意「改經」。近代學者延續清儒此說,尋章摘句、蒐集更多經文字句做為唐玄宗改經的例證,如新近陳壁生研究例擧十數條「明皇改經」證據,並舉證多條「以己意改經」,將之論成定案。然而仔細勘驗敦煌吐魯番諸種《孝經》寫卷,可發現清儒以來學者主張玄宗「改經」的各項佐證,多有資料考據不足與解讀上的偏差,無法作為立論玄宗以己意「改經」的切實證據,而是恰恰相反,透過與敦煌吐魯番諸本資料參核比對,展現出被認為所改之「經」實際上皆有六朝《孝經》文本的淵源,因此即便所謂玄宗「改經」,亦當屬官學立場的正訂經文範疇,而非「以己意改經」。
In the Northern Song Dynasty, Xing Bing stated in XiaojingZhushu that Confucians had pointed out the lack of "Gu"(故) behind the last word of Xiaojing "Jujiali", and it was added in YuzhuXiaojing. In the Qing Dynasty, ZangYong criticized the revision of the text by TangXuanzong, while YanKejun and PiXirui criticized the deletion of "ji" (己) in Shuren chapter by TangXuanzong's own will. Scholars afterward sustained the viewpoint in the Qing Dynasty and tried to find out more evidence to criticize the revision of Xiaojing made by TangXuanzong. For example, in ChenBisheng's paper, more than ten evidences were cited to prove the revision by TangXuanzong. Nevertheless, after reinvestigating DunHuang and Turfan's Xiaojing in this study, it has been found that the evidences of TangXuanzong's revision of Xiaojing made by scholars are mostly wrong. In fact, the revision made by TangXuanzong dates back to the Xiaojing in Six Dynasties, thus it was a representation of the official position, not a revision by TangXuanzong's own will.