nation of military spending and businessrnderegulation espoused by the RepublicanrnParty in 1964, and, again, in 1980.rnPopulists disliked, and still do dislike,rncorporations and the federal government,rnwhereas the Goldwaterites werernnot notably hostile to either.rnWith a bit more probing, Kazin mightrnhave discovered the obvious: that establishmentrnconservatives care even lessrnfor right-wing populists than he does.rnWhence the fighting on the Americanrnright, to which Kazin seems oblivious.rnConventional conservatives mimic populistrnrhetoric while trying to isolate orrnmoderate real populists; the populistrnright, by contrast, rails against the politicalrnclass, including the Republican Partyrnand the neoconservative neutralizers ofrntheir cause. For the American right, populismrnhas become a problem or a solution,rndepending on where one stands inrnthe conservative wars. In no way, however,rndoes it hold undisputed sway amongrnthose conservatives whom Kazin likelyrnhas encountered.rnPaul Gottfried is a professor ofrnhumanities at Elizabethtown Collegernin Pennsylvania.rnJesus!rnby Philip JenkinsrnThe Complete Gospels:rnRevised and Expanded EditionrnEdited by Robert]. MillerrnSan Francisco: Polebridge Press;rn462 pp., $18.00rnAs long as there have been Christians,rnthey have searched for thern”real Jesus.” In the last two centuries,rnthis search has been directed towardrndiscovering the authentic historical personalityrnwho supposedly lies behindrnwhat are seen as mythical accretions, arnquest that has inevitably led to conflictrnwith fundamentalists who resent thernapplication of conventional scholarlyrncriteria to the essential documents of thernfaith. We seem to have a simple dichotomyrnbetween the scholars and critics onrnthe one hand (educated, daring, honest)rnversus the massed forces of ElmerrnGantry on the other. The choice seemsrnstraightforward, and it is tempting forrneducated individuals, whether or notrnthey describe themselves as Christian, tornlisten respectfully to the opinions of ThernScholady Wodd. In recent years, “educatedrnopinion” on the search for the realrnJesus has acquired an institutional basisrnin the “Jesus Seminar,” that group whichrnasserts that only X percent of the wordsrnattributed to Jesus are likely to be historical,rnand that no serious attention shouldrnbe paid to the Lord’s Prayer, the Sermonrnon the Mount, and so on. It is distressing,rnbut how can one argue with thernexperts? Surely we should not alignrnourselves with the creationists andrnthe simplest true believers againstrnthis impressive band of doctors andrnchairholders? Now, the Jesus Seminarrnhas launched its boldest venture, whichrnis no less than a presentation of all therngospels, including those rejected by thernChurch for whatever reasons of bigotry,rnpatriarchalism, or anti-Semitism ledrnthem to rely exclusively on the flawedrntexts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.rnFinally, we have the basis of a “Scholars’rnVersion,” SV, the first New Testamentrntranslation to be undertaken free of thernbiases and political interests of churchrnand state.rnThe Complete Gospels is one of severalrnbooks that in the last few years havernmade widely available the opinions ofrnprogressive opinion in the area of biblicalrnscholarship, books like Burton L. Mack’srnThe Lost Gospel: The Book ofQ& ChristianrnOrigins and The Five Gospels: ThernSearch for the Authentic Words ofjesus byrnRobert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, andrnthe Jesus Seminar. Like these. The CompleternGospels is accessible in an attractiverntrade paperback, ideal for religious discussionrngroups; for decades to come, layrnopinion will be citing this material as,rndare I say, gospel truth.rnIt all seems too good to be true, andrnassuredly it is. While the scholarshiprnmanifested by the latest “Quest” is daringrnand occasionally perceptive, the underlyingrnassumptions are quite unsound.rnThese books are in their way sectarianrnmanifestoes as overt as any of the earlierrntranslations which the editors so despise.rnAnd in The Complete Gospels, the translationsrnhave traveled so far downmarketrnthat the end result is utterly embarrassing-rnThe latest “Quest for Jesus” owes itsrnorigins to the discovery of two majorrntexts and a host of lesser ones. The firstrnkey source is unknown to us as a document,rnbut can be reconstructed from anyrnNew Testament. In essence, it has beenrnknown for over 150 years that Matthew,rnMark, and Luke are closely related documents,rnwhich can be presented in thernform of a connected synopsis. The bestrnsolution for the “synoptic problem” isrnthat Mark wrote his gospel, which wasrnused by Matthew and Luke. However,rnboth these latter also had access to anotherrncommon source, which includedrnsuch familiar material as the Temptationrnin the wilderness, the Sermon on thernMount, and a great deal of archaic-lookingrnmaterial about demons and exorcisms.rnThis common source was givenrnthe name Q, and the more it was studied,rnthe odder it looked. This was arn”gospel” that probably lacked narrativernstructure, and consisted of a series ofrnstatements linked by “Jesus Said . . . ,”rn”Jesus Said . . . ” The “book” began notrnwith a birth story, but with the preachingrnof John the Baptist, and it ended with arnnot-yet-crucified Jesus assuring his apostlesrnthat they would sit on twelve thronesrnand judge the tribes of Israel. There isrnnot the slightest suspicion of doctrinesrnsuch as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation,rnor the Resurrection, and the communityrnwhich read or recited Q felt no need tornrefer to the death of Jesus. If this was anrnauthentic voice of eariy Christianity, itrnlooked like a distinctly Unitarian group,rnone which attached no significance tornthe death or atonement of Jesus. All veryrnunsettling.rnAnd then came the Nag Hammadi library.rnIn the 1940’s, an accidental findrnin Egypt produced an astonishing libraryrnof early Christian and Gnostic texts, atrnleast as important for our historicalrnTo order these books, (24hrs, 365 days)rnplease call (800) 962-6651 (Ext. 5200)rnJULY 1995/33rnrnrn