Arise Bharat

— A.S. Santhosh

The historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth is often treated as an unquestionable fact within Christian theology. However, when the Gospel narratives are examined critically and compared with one another, as well as with contemporary historical records, serious contradictions, omissions, and chronological impossibilities emerge. These inconsistencies raise a legitimate historical question as to whether Jesus, as described in the New Testament, existed as a historical individual or whether the figure was later constructed through theological storytelling.

One of the earliest and most striking problems arises from the account of the so-called Massacre of the innocent kids. According to Matthew (2:16), King Herod ordered the killing of all male children below the age of two in Bethlehem in an attempt to destroy the infant Jesus. Such an atrocity, had it occurred, would have been among the most heinous crimes of Herod’s reign. Yet this event finds no mention in the writings of contemporary Jewish or Roman historians. Flavius Josephus, who meticulously documented Herod’s paranoia, executions, and cruelty in Antiquities of the Jews (Books 15–17), makes no reference to such a massacre. The Talmudic literature is equally silent. This absence is historically significant, as Josephus records many lesser crimes of Herod in detail. The silence of all contemporary sources strongly undermines the credibility of Matthew’s account.

ALSO READ: Church Priority over Last 400 Years: Social Justice or Conversion?

The Gospel narratives concerning Jesus’ childhood further deepen these doubts. Matthew claims that Joseph was warned by an angel to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus to escape Herod’s wrath (Matthew 2:13–15) and that the family remained there until Herod’s death. Luke, however, presents a completely different version. According to Luke, after Jesus’ birth, the family remained openly in Judea, completed the ritual purification at the Temple, and then returned peacefully to Nazareth (Luke 2:22–24, 2:39). Luke shows no awareness of Herod’s massacre, the angelic warning, or the flight to Egypt. These two narratives cannot be reconciled. If the family fled in fear of a murderous king, Luke’s account of a calm and lawful return to Nazareth is inexplicable.

Luke’s chronology introduces an even more serious historical problem. He dates Jesus’ birth to a census conducted under Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:1–2). However, historical records establish that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, while Quirinius became governor of Syria only in 6 CE. Matthew explicitly places Jesus’ birth during the reign of Herod (Matthew 2:1). This creates a chronological gap of at least ten to eleven years between the two accounts. Such a discrepancy cannot be dismissed as a minor error, as it strikes at the core of the Gospel chronology. Attempts to suggest an earlier governorship of Quirinius or to confuse him with another Roman official lack historical evidence.

ALSO READ: Ethics of Conversion

The nativity narratives themselves are mutually exclusive. Luke alone records the shepherds and the angelic choir announcing Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8–20), while Matthew alone mentions the star and the visit of the Magi from the East (Matthew 2:1–12). Luke describes Jesus being laid in a manger (Luke 2:7), yet Matthew, Mark, and John make no mention of it. Mark begins his Gospel with the adult Jesus (Mark 1:1), and John offers only a theological prologue without any birth narrative (John 1:1–14). These divergent and selective accounts raise the question of which, if any, version reflects historical reality.

The same pattern of selective storytelling appears in the recording of miracles. John alone describes the raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11:1–44), an event that, if historical, would have been extraordinary and widely known. Yet Matthew, Mark, and Luke say nothing about it. The feeding of the four thousand is recorded by Matthew (15:32–39) and Mark (8:1–9) but omitted by Luke and John. Jesus walking on water is mentioned by Matthew (14:25), Mark (6:48), and John (6:19) but ignored by Luke. Such inconsistencies suggest theological emphasis rather than reliable historical reporting.

Despite being portrayed as a miracle worker who healed lepers (Matthew 8:3), raised the widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7:11–15), and restored sight to the blind (John 9:6–7), Jesus is depicted as completely abandoned during his trial. None of those supposedly healed or helped by him testify in his defense. On the cross, Jesus cries out, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” (Mark 15:34), expressing despair and abandonment. This raises a theological contradiction. If Jesus died willingly, why this cry of anguish? If he died according to God’s will, then his death is no different from that of any other human being. Furthermore, the doctrine that Jesus died for the sins of others conflicts with the principle of justice stated in Ezekiel 18:20, which affirms that each individual is responsible for his own sin.

Matthew alone records extraordinary cosmic events at the moment of Jesus’ death, including darkness over the land, an earthquake, opened tombs, and the resurrection of saints (Matthew 27:45, 51–53). Yet Mark (15:33), Luke (23:44–45), and John (19) either minimize or completely omit these details. More importantly, no Roman historian or contemporary chronicler records such global phenomena. If the sun truly darkened for three hours over the whole earth, as Matthew claims, its absence from Roman astronomical records is inexplicable.

The resurrection narratives further complicate the historical picture. Mary Magdalene visits the tomb early in the morning (John 20:1) and mistakes Jesus for a gardener (John 20:15). This raises an obvious question: if Jesus had risen in a glorified form, how did one of his closest followers fail to recognize him? Moreover, the act of attempting to anoint a body days after burial contradicts Jewish burial customs. Jesus tells her, “I am not yet ascended to my Father” (John 20:17), suggesting continued earthly existence rather than resurrection. Paul later claims that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people at once (1 Corinthians 15:6), yet none of the Gospels record such a mass appearance, a silence that seriously undermines the claim.

ALSO READ: Inherent Incompatibility of the Christianity and Indian Tribal Faiths

Jesus is said to have remained “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). However, according to the Gospel timeline, he was buried on Friday evening (Matthew 27:57–60) and rose early Sunday morning (Matthew 28:1), amounting to no more than one day and two nights. This falls far short of the stated duration. Additionally, dying-and-rising savior figures such as Dionysus predate Christianity, raising the possibility that the Jesus narrative drew upon existing mythological themes rather than unique historical events.

When all these contradictions, omissions, and chronological impossibilities are considered together, the Gospel accounts appear less like historical biographies and more like theological narratives shaped by doctrinal agendas. The silence of contemporary historians, irreconcilable birth stories, impossible census dating, selective miracle reporting, and conflicting resurrection accounts collectively weaken the claim that Jesus, as portrayed in the New Testament, existed as a historical figure. From an investigative historical perspective, the evidence raises a serious and unavoidable question: whether Jesus of the Gospels belongs to history or to constructed belief.

Reference: ‘Problems in Paradise’ written by Sri Umesh Patri