A Historian Shares What We Really Know About Jesus 22%

3/31/2026, 9:30:04 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% (13,223 of 16,813 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.60% 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 
Confirmation Bias
11.7%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
9.9%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
5.2%
Framing Effect
21.6%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
19.2%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
11.3%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
13.6%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
9.9%
Primacy Effect
8.5%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
23.5%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
5.2%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
4.2%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
8.9%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
25.8%
Unattributed Quote
11.3%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
29.6%
Indoctrination
8.5%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
17.4%

213 words analyzed.

Analysis

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