自元大德本《白虎通》 (1305) 問世以來，世人始有完整文本一窺東漢白虎觀會議究竟，進而以《白虎通》對質漢代經學、政治制度，及訓詁學等相關議題。民國二十年 (1931)，洪業為哈佛燕京學社作〈白虎通引得序〉。序文揭露《白虎通》：其行文氣韻與班固文章大不相類，且與當時漢制往往不合，並且《白虎通》鈔襲魏博士宋衷之緯注甚多，已瞭若指掌；此外，蔡邕之時尚有「白虎議奏」，及至魏繆襲始引《白虎通》文句。因此，洪業質疑今本《白虎通》：「疑其書非班固所撰」、「疑其非章帝所稱制臨决者」、「疑其為三國時作品」，如此始能合理解釋：「所以不僅許慎馬融不能得其書而讀之，且蔡邕鄭玄並不曾舉引」之特殊現象。 洪業序文無疑是推翻前人對《白虎通》之基本共識，並為後繼者提供別開生面之研究領域，而序文中揭示環繞於《白虎通》文本諸多不合理事項，是極為可貴之研究成果。然而，發現問題與解决問題，明為二事。洪業所舉之事證，偶有缺失，論證效力稍嫌不足；而假設「好事者」用「白虎議奏」，撮合經緯注釋而成《白虎通》，此事亦無明確事證；至於洪業所提之解答，依然無法合理解釋環繞於《白虎通》文本之諸問題。

Since Yuan Date “Po Hu Tung” edition (1305) was published, we had, finally, a complete textual to interpret Donghan Pohuguan meeting. Further, to compare it with jing-xue、political system and xun-gu-xue of Han Dynasty. In 1931, Hong, Ye wrote ‘A preface of Index to Po Hu Tung’ for Harvard-Yenching Institute. He exposed that “Po Hu Tung” was different from all articles of Ban,Gu, and did not conform to Han system, and it have been known that”Po Hu Tung” plagiarized many explanatory notes from Wei master Song, Zhong. Besides, in the time of Cai, Yong, there was “Po HuYi Zou”, until Wei Miu, Xi began to quote the article from”Po Hu Tung”. Therefore, Hong, Ye had queried that ““Po Hu Tung”was not wrote by Ban,Gu”、“its compiling was not authorized by Zhang-di”、“it could be wrote in Sanguo”, so that to reasonably explain why “not only Xu, Shen、Ma, Rong haven’t read it, but Cai, Yong, Zheng, Xuan also haven’t quoted it before”. Hong, Ye had gave the overthrow to the common consensus of “Po Hu Tung”, and open a new region to later generations. It was also a precious achievement to announce many unreasonable subjects in”Po Hu Tung”. How ever, he had just exposed but not solved the problems, the evidence that Hong, Ye had gave was not enough. In case that “someone” had adapted “Po Hu Yi Zou”to become”Po Hu Tung”, this could not be proved. As for the explanations gave by Hong, Ye, still couldn’t reasonably explain all the questions of “Po Hu Tung”