受1922年新出土三體石經之啟發，章太炎晚年所撰《春秋左氏疑義答問》中關於《春秋》經文、《左傳》師傳的見解，與其早年之認識有很大的不同。太炎1902至1908年撰作《春秋左傳讀敘錄》、《鐂子政左氏說》時，尚延續乾嘉以來學者對《左傳》之認識，認為漢儒所持《春秋》古經雖承自戰國古文，然猶是隸書轉寫的隸古文字，認定司馬遷、賈誼、劉向諸人以訓詁改字而傳《左氏》。1922年末，魏三體石經出土，章氏根據石經形制、行款，以及自己對古文《尚書》諸問題之思考，主張兩漢經師傳授經本，具摹錄本、迻寫本、釋文本三部之判，各有職司。漢代學者傳《春秋》古經，於迻寫本訓讀多改從二家之字；及漢魏遞變，摹錄本漸亡，迻寫本代之成為本經。吾人猶可從賈誼《新書》、司馬遷《史記》、劉向《說苑》等書，稽考西漢左氏古義，並由此蠡探《春秋》古經文本變異面貌。章太炎《答問》將可考見的《左》經古文，依序定位於各層歷史年代座標之中，首次建構了《春秋》、《左傳》文字興替、經本傳授的完整圖象，對《左傳》文本與經學史研究有所裨益。太炎在《左傳》研究上之轉變，超越了清代乾嘉以還，諸儒在版本校勘、經傳注釋、文本異文等三方面的成果，並將研究之重點，從比較賈逵、服虔、杜預注本之差別，上升到對西漢《左傳》文本、經說之研究。其摹錄本、迻寫本、釋文本，一本三分之經本傳授模型，輻射漢魏六朝至唐的《左傳》學史，實開啟現代意義上對《左氏》文本、注釋之綜合研究。

Zhang Taiyan's views on the intertextuality between Chunqiu and Zuozhuan in his later years are quite different from those in his early years. The reason lies in the insights obtained from the newly unearthed stone-engraved three-script version of the classic from the Wei dynasty in 1922. Between 1902 and 1908, Zhang continued the scholars' ideas of Zuozhuan since the Qianlong and Jiaqing periods when he wrote Chunqiu zuozhuan xulu and Liuzizheng Zuoshi shuo. He believed that although the ancient Chunqiu script used by Han scholars was inherited from the writings of the Warring States period, it was still a version converted from the clerical script, as Sima Qian, Jia Yi and Liu Xiang inherited Zuozhuan by exegesis. However, in late 1922, the three-script stone version from the Wei dynasty was unearthed. According to its shape, style and his own explorations into various issues related to the ancient Shangshu, Zhang realized that there were three versions of the classics on which scholars of the Han dynasty based their transmission, namely the hand-copied, the rewritten, and the explicated versions. Each version had its own functions. Han scholars taught the ancient classics of Chunqiu and emended the rewritten version according to Gongyang and Guliang. When the Wei dynasty replaced the Han, the copied version gradually declined, and the rewritten version took the place as the classic text. From Jia Yi's Xinshu, Sima Qian's Shiji and Liu Xiang's Shuoyuan, we can still catch a glimpse of the original appearance of Zuozhuan in the Western Han and, thus, review the variations between different versions of the ancient classic of Chunqiu as it was transmitted over the ages. With Zhang Taiyan's Dawen, one will be able to map the ancient versions of Zuozhuan against its historical timeline and construct a complete picture of the inheritance and transmission of the ancient classics, as well as the teaching of the classics Chunqiu and Zuozhuan, which is of great significance to the studies of Zuozhuan text and the history of Confucian classics. Zhang's contribution to the transformation in the studies of Zuozhuan has overshadowed the achievements of other scholars in text collation, annotation, and interpretation since the Qianlong and Jiaqing periods of the Qing dynasty and shifted the focus of the scholarship from the comparison between Jia Kui, Fu Qian and Du Yu annotations in the Six Dynasties to the examination of the text and interpretations of Zuozhuan in the Western Han. The transmission model of the copied, rewritten, and explicated versions of Zuozhuan enbodies the history of Zuozhuan scholarship over the Han, Wei, and Six Dynasties periods and the Tang dynasty, which opens up the field of comprehensive research on the Zuozhuan text and annotations in the modern times.