錢穆以《史記》中的「古文」為《詩》、《書》、《六藝》，奠基對兩漢今古文的看法，堅持主張兩漢沒有今古文之爭，在西漢為王官學（六藝）和百家言的對峙；在東漢僅有今、古學之辨。本文針對此一說法作一檢討，認為錢穆定義「古文」的排他性過強，僅限於《詩》、《書》、《六藝》，堅持與廖平、周予同說法劃清界限，反形成另一種門戶之見。此門戶顯現在錢穆的「史學」立場及對朱子「理學」之偏好，致使對兩漢今古文問題的詮釋，產生了一定程度的偏失。本文希冀藉由對錢穆看法的檢討，引發重新思考兩漢今古文問題時，如何跳脫廖平「平分今古」與錢穆「破除今古」二擇一的命題，開創理解今古文的新道路。

Qian Mu (1895-1990) interpreted the ＂Old Text＂ (guwen) mentioned in the Records of the Grand Historian (Shi ji) as the classical ＂Six Arts＂, and thus laid the foundation for a modern viewpoint of the New Text and the Old Text of the Han dynasty. Qian contended that there were no disputes between New Text Scholarship and Old Text Scholarship during the Han Dynasty: there was only the antithesis between the official learning (wangguan xue) and the Hundred Schools (baijia yan) during the Western Han, and there was only the opposition between the New School (jin xue), which emphasized the syntactic and semantic interpretation of ancient texts, and the Old School (gu xue), which emphasized the exegetical interpretation of ancient texts, during the Eastern Han. The focal point of this paper is a review of Qian's interpretation: his exclusive definition of ＂Old Text＂ was arbitrary. Qian demarcated his conception from those of Liao Ping (1852-1932) and Zhou Yutong (1898-1981), and confined his interpretation only to the classical Six Arts. A sectarian bias thus came into being. This bias was demonstrated by Qian's historiographical standpoint and his preference for Neo-Confucianism, which to a certain extent brought about a deficiency in his interpretation of the issues between the New Text and the Old Text. By reviewing Qian's conception, this paper aims at a reflection on the interpretation of the New- Old issues. We should think outside the box-the alternative thesis between Liao's bisection of the New and the Old and Qian's erasure of the New and the Old-and take a new approach to the issue.