關於《論語筆解》（以下簡稱《筆解》），洪興祖與朱熹等宋儒皆有疑之，《四庫全書總目》則稱其「未可謂宋人偽撰」，足見其原具爭議性。今筆者按「韓愈自言」、「唐人之說」、「宋人之說」、「元人之說」、「明人之說」、「清人之說」，依序臚列有關韓愈注解《論語》之文獻，逐次討論此等文獻所呈現出的問題點，再據日本江戶時代儒者伊東龜年於寶曆十一年（1761）考校其先前抄寫自友人林以寧處之朝鮮活字本《韓文公論語筆解》，而於日本江戶明和八年（1771）刊刻之《挍刻韓文公論語筆解》（以下簡稱伊東挍刻本），並輔以前人研究成果，以釐清《筆解》一書作者究竟為何人？《筆解》與韓愈《論語注》之間有何關係？其卷數有幾？以及其篇幅何以會從十卷遽減為二卷之成書問題，再考《筆解》之成書過程，進而為伊東挍刻本《筆解》作一定位。

Hong Xingzu, Zhu Xi and others doubted the authenticity of Lunyu bijie. The “Introduction of the Classification” of Siku quanshu said that it was not written in the Song Dynasty. It shows the complexity of this problem. This paper aims at the literature concerning Han Yu’s interpretation of the Analects of Confucius, going through the arguments from the Tang dynasty to the Qing dynasty to discuss its problems, then takes up consideration of Jiaoke Hanwengong Lunyu bijie which was transcribed by Ito Kinen from his friend Hayashi Ine’s Jiaoke Hanwengong Lunyu bijie in 1761 and published in 1771 . It answers: Who was the author of Lunyu bijie;, what is the relation between it and Han Yu’s Lunyu zhu; how many volumes it had; and why from ten volumes it has become just two volumes. Finally, this paper examines the process of the formation of Lunyu bijie to locate Ito Kinen’s Jiaoke Hanwengong Lunyu bijie.