A Historian Shares What We Really Know About Jesus ⁠22%

3/31/2026, 2:30:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Genetic Fallacy, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 29.6% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 522 faulty-reasoning hits from 213 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠22% (17,192 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.50% of the article peer group.

With Easter weekend approaching, we’re revisiting our 2025 conversation with Elaine Pagels about the real Jesus of Nazareth. 
The evidence is clear that Jesus was a real, historical person. 
But beyond that, says the scholar Elaine Pagels, there are more questions than answers about what kind of person Jesus was and what can be known about his life. 
Pagels’ latest book offers a new account, based on a wide range of recently available sources, of the life of Jesus. 
Some of the most inspiring details of the Gospels, she says, were crafted by his followers to avoid persecution and to explain inconvenient truths. 
In their telling, he wasn’t an illegitimate child, but rather immaculately conceived by God. 
His corpse wasn’t tossed into a common grave; he was resurrected and seen alive by his followers. 
Pagels joins us to explore what actually happened to Jesus, and why he continues to inspire and attract believers. 
GUEST — 
Elaine Pagels | Historian who has published widely on Gnosticism and early Christianity. 
She’s a Professor of Religion at Princeton University and was awarded the 2015 National Humanities Medal. 
Her latest book is called “Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus.” 
[Amazon | Bookshop] 
Airdate: Apr. 
1, 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.7%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic9.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias5.2%This article: 21.6%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect21.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias19.2%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error11.3%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.6%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect13.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.9%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias9.9%This article: 8.5%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.5%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority23.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.2%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof5.2%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.2%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.9%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground8.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 25.8%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy25.8%This article: 11.3%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote11.3%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 29.6%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice29.6%This article: 8.5%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination8.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 17.4%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…17.4%

213 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker53%attributed speech100writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageElaine Pagels • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageElaine Pagels • 24 words • 100.0% coverageElaine Pagels • 14 words • 0.0% coverageElaine Pagels • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageElaine Pagels • 13 words • 0.0% coverageElaine Pagels • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elaine Pagels

74%flagged-word coverage
113 attributed words100% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-17.8 ptsWriter: 39.0%Elaine Pagels: 21.2%21.2%Attempt to Sell a Product -37.0 ptsWriter: 37.0%Elaine Pagels: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+21.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elaine Pagels: 21.2%21.2%Indoctrination-18.0 ptsWriter: 18.0%Elaine Pagels: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.