All language subtitles for The UnXplained s03e01 Mysteries of the Bible.eng

Ancient texts nearly erased
from history.

Shocking revelations
from eyewitness accounts.

And forbidden knowledge
that could forever change

our very notion of god.

To billions of faithful
around the world,

the bible is the single
most important document

in human history.

Its contents are believed
to be authoritative,

infallible and unquestionable.

The word of god.

But is it possible that the
bible we've been reading

for thousands of years
has been compromised

by everything from
flawed translations

to conflicting
religious agendas?

Well,
that is what we'll try and find out.

Support us and become VIP member
to remove all ads from www.OpenSubtitles.org

According to scholars,
the book known as the bible

began as a series of stories
that were first written down

thousands of years ago.

But given the fact
that these stories

have been continuing,

subjected to centuries of editing,
translation

and reinterpretation,

just who was the
bible's original author,

and how close are
today's versions of it

to the original texts?

Many people
would take it on faith

that the text that
they're reading,

the received tradition

is actually somehow
inspired by god.

And the hebrew
bible is ascribed...

At least the torah portion...

Is ascribed to moses.

And then other prophets
wrote their prophetic books,

but this old testament
was written over a very

long period of time by
multiple different people.

As far as the
faithful are concerned,

the bible was
inspired and authored

not by man, but by god.

But even if that's true,

is there any way to prove it?

Qumran. The british
mandate of palestine. 1946.

In the arid hills along
the northwest shores

of the dead sea,

a bedouin shepherd tending
his flock stumbles upon

a long-lost cave.

Once inside,
he makes an incredible discovery.

A number of sand-covered clay jars,
each containing

numerous scrolls of parchment
and papyrus written in hebrew,

aramaic and greek,

and each more
than 2,000 years old.

The ancient texts contain
fragments of all but one

of the 39 books of
the old testament,

and eventually come to be
known as the dead sea scrolls.

The most significant
archeological discovery

of the 20th century,
in fact of modern times,

has been the dead sea scrolls.

This was a collection of
writings that was produced

by a group of jews living
in about the same time

and about the same
place as jesus himself.

With the discovery of
the dead sea scrolls,

scholars got a glimpse
of actual biblical texts...

Hand-written texts that
were a thousand years older

than the previously
oldest text that we had.

Of the 972 manuscripts

that make up the
dead sea scrolls,

many contradict what is found

in more modern
versions of the bible.

These discrepancies have
left generations of scholars

and theologians
scratching their heads,

and have also invited some to
question whether the holy book

is the work of god or man.

One thing that came clear

when the dead sea
scrolls were discovered is

there is not just
one textual tradition.

For example, in cave 1,
where the great isaiah scroll

was discovered,
this almost perfectly-preserved scroll

contains all 66 chapters
of the book of isaiah

and is virtually identical
to the text of isaiah

that we have in our english
translations of the bible today.

However,
there was a second scroll of isaiah

found in the same cave
that represents almost

an entirely different
edition of the book

than what we have in our bibles.

And scholars today have to
look at these little fragments

and say,
"which one is more authentic?"

which is a hard question.

One of the
reasons the bible's origins

remain a mystery isn't
merely a matter of who

or how many people wrote it,

but what language it
was originally written in.

One of the secrets
among scholars and those who do

the study of ancient
language and the translation

is that there wasn't a lot
of punctuation in hebrew,

and many greek manuscripts,
there weren't spaces.

So the classic
example is the phrase,

"god is now here,"
or "god is nowhere."

if you write all those
letters together,

you don't know whether the
text is saying "god is now here"

or "god is nowhere."

depending on how you
break up the word "now here"

or "nowhere,"
that says the opposite.

I mean it's, is god here,
or is he not?

And depending on how you
break that word up, it's a big deal.

As if questions
of mistranslation

aren't confusing enough,

we also know that for
more than 1,000 years,

the official bible was one
that had been translated

into yet another language.

A language that most
people couldn't even read:

Latin.

The roman catholic
church wanted the latin bible

to be the bible,
and the idea of putting the bible

into a vernacular language so
an average person could read it

was strictly forbidden.

The church wanted
to keep control

over the message of the bible.

And so there was
an official translation

that was the only one
that was to be used,

and the priests were
the ones that were to do

the interpretation and so forth.

Even as late as 16th century,

possession of an unlicensed
bible carried a death sentence.

In 1536, english scholar
and linguist william tyndale

was executed for the
crime of translating the bible

from the vulgate,
or the traditional latin,

into english.

But all this changed
when the english monarch

king henry viii became
embroiled in a bitter battle

with pope clement vii
over the king's request

for an annulment to
the king's marriage

to queen catherine of aragon.

Henry's desire to
take on a new wife

would eventually lead
to a break with rome

and the creation of
the church of England.

As different countries,
different kings came to power,

they needed the blessing
of the pope at the vatican

to do certain things, like,
for instance, get divorced.

And when the pope said no,
there were some,

like henry viii, who said,
"you know what?

"I'm gonna form my own church,

"and we're gonna
have our own clergy

"and our own hierarchy,
and we're gonna use the bible

as the foundation of it,
and we're gonna do our own thing."

In 1539,
henry viii commissioned the publication

of what was then
called the great bible.

Translated into english,
it contained much

that was nearly identical
to the tyndale translation,

minus some of that version's
more controversial passages.

And in 1539, henry brings out,

with his picture on the title page,
a bible

that has been
commissioned by him,

and it's called the great bible,
or the king's bible.

It shows the king
in what we think of

as the prime real estate
place of a title page:

Top and center.

And he is holding out
copies of the translated bible

to his statesmen on one side
and his churchmen on the other.

And they are receiving it,
some of them on their knees.

So it is definitely
a portrait of power.

And after him, all monarchs
want their own bible in England.

We know these
books have discrepancies in them

and contradictions
among themselves.

They are at odds
with one another.

They're not
disinterested history

the way we would
think of it today.

These authors
had a goal in mind.

They had an agenda.

And they included
only those stories

that made their point.

There comes a point
when you realize

that interpretation is
nine-tenths of the law.

But if you believe that
the bible is inerrant,

infallible,
the verbatim word of god,

that causes a problem.

Because now we have to
ask what did god really say?

While the stories of the
bible may have been divinely inspired,

it seems that the book
we read today has more of

man's fingerprints
on it than god's.

So, if this is the case,

how can one know which
is the true word of god?

Perhaps for the answer,
it's best to search

not within the
pages of the bible,

but outside of them,
in the pages

of the parts of the bible
that were edited out.

It is estimated
that 100 million bibles

are printed and
purchased every year,

all across the world.

But not all bibles are the same.

The most obvious difference,
of course,

is that judaism only recognizes
what christians refer to

as the old testament.

But even christians
use different versions

of the old and new testaments.

These vary not only in
language and translation,

but in terms of what is
included and what is not.

For example,
most protestant bibles,

including the king
james version,

contain 66 books.

The catholic bible includes 73.

But the bible of the
ethiopian orthodox church,

a christian denomination of
36 million followers in africa,

has 81.

One of the secrets
of ancient christianity

is that different ethnic
and religious groups

had different bibles.

So, there are different groups,
like the coptics

or the ethiopian church.

They actually have some
of these inspired books,

whereas other groups do not.

So we shouldn't just ask which
version of the bible is correct,

but it's which collection
of biblical books is correct.

To be included in
the official version of the bible,

or canon,

a book must be considered
to be divinely inspired.

The word of god.

But just who decides?

There were a group
of men with specific agendas

determining what would and
what would not become canon.

And this agenda
was about preserving

the power of the church.

The agenda here is
politics and economics.

It's not spirituality.

It is well-known

that there's certain
numbers of texts

which are just not made
available to the public.

Some are actually
denied to even exist,

but most are said to
be secret knowledge.

Why? What is so secret?

What is being concealed?

Until the mid-1800s,

many early bibles... Even
the king james version...

Contained a number of books
that have since been edited out.

These are known
as the apocrypha.

The word
"apocrypha" literally means

"hidden things."

and so, these are books
that allegedly were providing

hidden or secret teachings.

But the term "apocrypha"
came to mean books

that were not accepted
as part of the official canon.

There was a council
that would say, "this is the tradition,

this is the proper interpretation,
this is how

you should interpret
the scripture."

so any book that contradicts

what they've already decided
to believe gets cast out.

But of all the apocrypha

or hidden books of the bible,

one book in particular...
The book of enoch...

Is considered so controversial

that many believe it
was deliberately omitted

because of its bizarre
and outrageous contents.

Ironically,
the character of enoch

does appear in
the old testament,

but only as a devoted
follower of god,

one who lived hundreds of
years before the great flood.

Who was this enoch?

What's so peculiar about him?

Because the bible
says about him,

"that he walked
with god and was not,

for god had taken him."

taken him where?
Where did he go?

The majority of traditions
say he was taken to heaven.

Enoch is the only one in
heaven allowed to sit along with god,

and he reveals
information to humanity.

Believed to have been written

sometime between
300 bc and 10 bc,

the book of enoch
was traditionally thought

to have been authored
by enoch himself,

in order to share
secret knowledge

given to him by god.

Enoch was an
incredibly popular book

in the time leading up to
the formation of christianity.

In fact, we know that whoever
wrote the gospel of matthew

very likely knew about
the book of enoch

because there are
certain languages

that we see in the
gospel of matthew

and nowhere else
in the new testament.

Of all the secret texts,
I think that the book of enoch

in many ways is
the most forbidden.

At some time
before the fourth century,

the book of enoch was
excluded from the hebrew version

of the bible,
and became discredited

by all but two early
christian churches.

But why?

Could there be
clues in the text itself?

Enoch becomes this seer

who gives all kinds of
later prophecies to jews.

He predicts the
end of the world.

He predicts the
coming of the messiah.

But one of the things
he does is he elaborates

this story of the giants.

According to the book of enoch,

the giants, or watchers,
were a group of renegade angels

sent to earth to guard man
more than 5,000 years ago.

But instead of protecting
the human race,

they lusted after women
and corrupted mankind.

The watchers
mate with human women.

But also what the watchers
do is they teach women

all kinds of forbidden arts,
such as cosmetics.

So,
makeup comes from the evil watchers

who taught women how
to make up their faces.

The book of
enoch is a real conundrum

because this idea that
the rebellious angels

have a power that can
rival god is something

that is very threatening
to traditional church.

In the book of enoch,

the offspring of the
watchers and mortal women

are described as giant
warriors called nephilim.

The watchers came
down and took for themselves

the daughters of
men and give birth

to a generation of titans

called the fallen ones,
nephilim.

These hybrid
between the watchers

and the daughters of men

created tremendous
havoc in the human race.

The nephilim...

These are these
grotesque giants.

They are neither
angels nor people.

They are described
as monstrous beings.

And there were apparently
thousands of them

that populated the earth.

In fact,
there were so many of them,

that at a certain point,
god had to destroy

all of humanity in
order to get rid of them.

One of the things
that people don't realize is that

when god sends the flood
during the days of noah,

that in one
version of the story,

is that the reason god
decides to destroy the earth

is because these
nephilim were on the earth.

Grotesque
giants attacking humans?

And the giants, in turn,
being destroyed by god

in the great flood?

Was the book of enoch purged
from the standard biblical texts

because it was
considered too far-fetched?

Too outrageous?

Or was it because
it portrayed god

as a compassionate creator,

one who forgave

rather than punished
mankind for its sins?

God is protecting
us in the book of enoch.

It is a very different god
than the spiteful, wrathful god

that we see in the
genesis account.

The church derives great
benefit from having us

be very, very afraid of god

and of god wiping us all
out if we're not obedient.

But if the
early editors of the bible

intended to purge
it of far-fetched tales

containing references
to fantastical devices

and devastating weapons,
then why did they leave in

what is perhaps the most
audacious story of all?

One which involves
a man named moses

and a device so powerful

it can destroy entire armies...

The ark of the covenant.

In the beginning,

god created the
heavens and the earth.

He said, "let there be light,"
and there was light.

Then darkness.

The firmament,
the oceans. Plants and trees.

Animals that fly
and slither and swim.

And last but not least,

male and female.

The book of genesis. It's a nice story,
of course.

One that we're all
undoubtedly familiar with.

But could it be true?

Some people
say that they believe

that there should never
ever be any conflict

between science and religion.

But if we accept genesis
as being historical,

which according to faith,
of course we do,

then we need to ask the
other realistic questions:

How and what really happened?

While mainstream
scientists are understandably skeptical

that god, as described in the
old testament book of genesis,

created the earth and
everything on it in only six days,

there is surprising
evidence to suggest that

the second book of the bible,
exodus,

is based on historical fact.

In the book of exodus,

the, uh, children of israel
have been enslaved in egypt

and god has told moses to
go and set his people free.

Moses demands that
pharaoh lets the people free.

Pharaoh refuses,

and so god empowers moses to
do plagues against the egyptians,

and finally the pharaoh relents,
lets the people go.

Israel's
origins as a slave nation

is not the sort of thing
people would make up.

So even many of
the most critical,

historical scholars
of the bible would say,

"there's something to this."

we do know from egyptian history,
both from ancient texts

and archaeological
evidence through excavations,

that somewhere
around 1700 to 1650 bc,

there was an influx of
foreigners into egypt.

They spoke a dialect
very similar to hebrew.

And when ramesses ii comes
along in the 13th century,

he decided to move
his base of operations

to a new city that
he named ramesses,

pi-ramesses,
the house of ramesses.

And according to
the book of exodus,

that's why I would place
this event in the 13th century,

sort of as they finally get
fed up with years and years

of being abused and used
to build pharaoh's projects.

But if the book of exodus

was based on real
events and people,

then wouldn't there be some kind

of physical
evidence left behind...

A relic of their
journey out of egypt...

That would validate
this incredible story?

According to some scholars,

such a relic could
actually exist:

The ark of the covenant.

The ark of the
covenant is probably

one of the best-kept
mysteries in the world today.

We know,
according to the biblical description,

that the commandments
which moses brought down

from mount sinai were
placed inside the ark.

As well as a portion
of the manna,

which they collected
in the desert,

and aaron's rod,
which had blossomed with almonds

in the great test of the tribes.

It was a box of gold
which had inside it a box of wood.

And then another box of
gold with a golden cover.

The ark of the
covenant represents

the giving of the
torah at sinai from god.

It's the holiest object

that ever existed in
the jewish tradition.

And there are people who,
because their belief

somehow needs to be
palpable and physical,

feel as though if
they could see it,

that would prove
god's will in this world.

But if the ark of
the covenant was not only real

but still exists,
where could it be?

According to the hebrew bible,
the ark was once housed

inside a secret inner sanctuary

of king solomon's
temple in jerusalem.

But after the temple was
destroyed around 586 bc,

the whereabouts of the ark

and its precious contents
became unknown.

One tradition,
of course, is that

it was simply destroyed
by the babylonians

when the temple was burnt and
melted and that's the end of it.

However,
because the ark never showed up again,

people have often wondered
what really did happen to the ark.

For centuries,
the search for the ark of the covenant

has consumed both
archaeologists and bible scholars.

If it were ever found,
it would not only prove

that the biblical accounts
in the book of exodus

were based on historical events,

it could also unleash
incredible power.

I'm a great believer
in trying to find out

as much as we
can archaeologically

about what happened
in biblical history,

and the way in which
we can validate it,

as long as we're
intellectually honest.

Some things we'll
be able to prove,

some things we will disprove.
And much we will never know.

In recent years, some
scholars and theologians have suggested

that the ark isn't lost,

but was deliberately hidden.

Kept away from those
who might wish to exploit

its awesome power.

For many, to find a relic
like the ark of the covenant

is extremely important.

It was viewed as god's throne,

and these ideas are most
likely connected to scriptures

that refer to the ark
being carried into battle

and the enemies are
scattering before them.

It is said that
the ark housed kavod,

or glory of god.

Now,
this in quote "glory of god"

was not something symbolic,
it was something actual,

something tangible,

something energetic.

What are we missing here
in the biblical understanding

of this mysterious box?

It was clearly far more
than just a religious icon.

There was a technology involved,

and that is what makes the ark,
to this day,

one of the greatest
mysteries of our history.

If the ark of the covenant did,
in fact,

have extraordinary power,

as described in the bible,

is it simply too dangerous
to be possessed by man?

And could that be why

it has eluded
rediscovery for centuries?

Perhaps.

But not all bible mysteries
involve holy relics.

Some concern people,

including the man
who billions believe

is the son of god.

The ancient kingdom of judah,

more than 2,000 years ago.

It was here,

according to the new testament
gospels of matthew and luke,

that the infant jesus was born
to a young woman named mary

and her husband joseph.

But believe it or not,

the actual year of jesus'
birth remains a mystery.

For centuries, the year 1 ad,

or anno domini,
the year of our lord,

was assumed to be correct.

But recent historical
research suggests otherwise.

Jesus is born somewhere
between 4 and 7 bce,

because herod the
great died in 4 bc

and jesus was born
during herod the great.

So this is one of the
secrets that scholars know

but most people
don't think about.

Those who made the
calendar screwed it up.

They dated the birth
of jesus incorrectly.

And we still live on a calendar
where jesus is actually born

four to seven years bc.

But as one can imagine,
the exact year of jesus' birth

is not the only aspect of his
life that has been debated.

The new testament
states that jesus was born

in the town of bethlehem,
but recently even that

has been questioned by both
historians and theologians.

Pretty much the only thing
that we can be fairly certain of

about jesus' childhood

is that he was born and
raised in the city of nazareth.

It was the only thing
that his followers

and detractors agreed about.

His name was the nazarene.

The fact is, much of
what we know about the life of jesus

comes from the four
gospels of the new testament.

And even though they are
credited to the evangelists

matthew, mark, luke and john,

the gospels may
actually have been written

decades after jesus' death.

We would love to know answers to,
like,

what was jesus
like as a teenager?

And did jesus ever
have any girlfriends?

Did he ever have
any relationships,

anything like that?

The gospels don't really
want to tell us any of that stuff

because they're really
interested in just focusing

on why jesus is who
he is and what he did.

What really happened
during jesus' so-called lost years?

Were the accounts
omitted deliberately?

And if so, why?

Well, as it turns out,
closer examination

of the little that the gospels
do say about jesus' early life

reveals some surprising facts.

It's one of the biggest-kept
secrets about jesus,

that he's one of
quite a large family.

We know of at
least four brothers:

James, joses, simon and judas.

We know of at least
a couple of sisters.

It's curious how they disappear,
though.

We don't see much
of them later on.

Perhaps one
of the most controversial

and profound aspects
of the story of jesus

is the belief that
his mother mary

gave birth to him
while still a virgin.

And as audacious
as that may seem,

it is among the very
foundations of the christian faith.

But curiously, the references
to jesus being born of a virgin

can only be found
in two of the gospels:

Matthew and luke.

Wouldn't such a miraculous event

have been recorded by
all four of the evangelists?

Or was it,
as some scholars suggest,

an attempt by some
of jesus' followers

to justify their belief
that he was the fulfillment

of the old testament prophecies,

the hebrew messiah?

The new testament loves
to rely on the prophecies

of-of the prophet isaiah,

uh, for proof, if you will,

of jesus', uh, messiah-ship.

One of the prophecies
that became very popular

was a prophecy during
the-the time of hezekiah.

Jerusalem's under siege,
they don't know

if they're gonna survive,
and isaiah comes up with

a prophecy that says, "look,
behold there's a virgin,

and she will bear a son and
his name will be emmanuel,"

which is "god with us."

the christians come along

and-and take that prophecy

and they reinterpret it.

And they say this prophecy
is actually a reference to mary,

who's a real virgin.

And the son that she's
going to bear is jesus.

And jesus will be the
savior of all mankind,

not just of jerusalem
in the eighth century,

but of all mankind for all time.

Whether you
believe that jesus' virgin birth

was the fulfillment
of a prophecy

or a story created to help
establish his divine origins,

it is one of the key
mysteries of the christian faith.

Just like the question posed by
many academics and theologians:

Did jesus really think
he was the messiah,

the actual son of god?

The question of how
jesus perceived himself

will likely remain
a secret for all time.

Some people argue that
jesus understood himself

to be the son of god.

He knew who he was.

And others, based on the text,
will say, "well, no."

in the gospel of john,
jesus even uses a term

to describe himself that's,
I think,

intentionally ambiguous.

He refers to himself
in the third person

as the "son of man."

well,
the secret about the word "son of man"

is that, in aramaic,
it's just the way that you say "a person."

so when jesus uses
the phrase "son of man"

as a self-description,

you don't know whether
he's just saying himself

or whether he's actually
making a messianic claim.

Although
many details of jesus' life

remain unverified by history,
one fact is certain:

He was a charismatic
teacher and prophet.

If we read the biblical text,

jesus created a great following

because he performed miracles.

He did magic deeds.

He caused the blind to see.

He was a healer.

At the end of the day,
jesus was kind to those in need.

He loved those who needed help,

who no one else would love.

At the wedding of cana,
jesus turns the water into wine.

And he doesn't just
turn it into any wine.

He turns it into the best wine.

So this is jesus'
first public miracle.

And once he comes
forward with his first miracle,

the floodgates really open.

The ministry has begun.

Jesus has arrived
and he is the messiah

and the miracle worker.

But did the miracles of jesus,

as reported in the gospels,
really happen?

For instance,
did he really raise

a man called
lazarus from the dead

and feed 5,000 people

with only two small fish
and five loaves of bread?

Perhaps the answer can
be found by examining

what are referred to
as the lost gospels,

a collection of writings that
were supposedly authored

by people who witnessed
jesus' life firsthand.

A group of
farmers tilling their fields

unearth a clay jar.

It contains more
than 50 biblical scrolls

dating back to the
third century ad,

making them even older

than the books of the
so-called new testament.

Instead, these texts are
supposedly firsthand accounts

written by friends
and followers of jesus,

and were worshipped as fact
by a relatively obscure group

of ancient christians
known as the gnostics.

Gnosticism comes
from a direct oral tradition

that is passed down
from the early christians

and evolves separately from
the institutionalized church.

And there's the tradition that
the gnostics have teachings

that come directly from jesus

through apostles,
followers, even family,

who come from jesus.

"gnostic" comes
from the word "gnosis,"

which means a personal
revelation and experience.

And when we look
at those texts today,

we see secret learning,

secret teachings.

Secret teachings,

directly from jesus himself,

passed down through
his closest followers

and potentially giving
us a firsthand account

of jesus' life and deeds?

One might think such gospels

would be held in high
regard by the church.

But, in fact,
it was quite the opposite.

When I first encountered what
are called the gnostic gospels,

we were all surprised that
there were so many gospels

that weren't in
the new testament.

The reason
that a lot of these books

didn't make it into the bible
is that they weren't congruent

with the core message of
the books that did make it in.

These texts were declared to be

sort of full of errors and
they'll lead you astray.

One famous bishop calls
them an abyss of madness

and blasphemy against christ.

So these were the
enemies of the early church.

And christians thought they
must have horrible things in them.

The penalty for copying
and... Or even keeping

any of the gnostic texts

would have been
increasingly severe.

It could have even led to
more severe punishment,

like torture and death.

These lost
books of the new testament

include a number
of so-called gospels,

including the gospel of thomas,
the gospel of philip,

the gospel of the
egyptians and many others.

But just what was it
in these gnostic texts

that made many bible
scholars and clerics reject them

as being not only too
controversial but too dangerous?

The gospels of the new testament

all tell you how
important jesus is.

Jesus is the son of god,
the son of man,

the king of israel, the messiah.

I mean, you name it,
he's somebody very special.

And he's not like you and me.

Now,
the gospels of thomas or phillip,

they say something
quite different.

They say jesus, yes,
he may be speaking divine truth,

but he's really like you and me.

But of all the gnostic gospels,

there is one that many
biblical scholars believe

to be more significant and
more controversial than the rest:

The gospel of mary.

There's a lot of
controversy about mary magdalene.

In the bible,
she's portrayed a certain way.

She's-she's one of
the followers of jesus.

Oftentimes she's
described as a prostitute,

as one who jesus kind of
picked up from obscurity

and made her
one of his followers.

But the gospel of
mary specifically says

that jesus loved mary
more than the other disciples.

In fact,
they actually put that in the mouths

"so don't you know

that he loved her,
uh, more than us?"

Although the actual
author of this gospel is unknown

and several pages
of the original text

have never been found,

the text seems to
reveal astonishing details

about mary magdalene's
relationship with jesus.

There are even those who
are convinced that mary

was not only one of jesus'
most devoted followers,

but also perhaps his lover

or even his wife.

Certainly we discover
in the gnostic text

that are many, many references

to jesus' relationship
to mary magdalene.

She is referred to
as his "beloved."

she is referred to
in a sexual manner

in the gnostic gospels.

So not only was jesus married,

but jesus was married
to mary magdalene.

Because jesus was a rabbi,
it would have been required

for jesus to be married.

If jesus were not married,
this would have been something

that would have been
remarked upon and talked about.

And the fact that it is not
is actually one of the things

that proves that
jesus was married,

because it would have been very
normal for him to have been so.

Gnosticism was seen as a problem

because there was a core
belief that had to be maintained,

that there were certain
non-negotiable truths

that were part of
the christian gospel.

And so if anything was
contradictory to that,

then it needed to be
suppressed or refuted.

There is a
lot of gnostic material

that tells us jesus was
married to mary magdalene.

2,000 years of church
tradition is overturned

by the gnostic gospels because
mary magdalene emerges

as a successor of jesus.

Did jesus, the son of god,

really have a wife,
children and descendants?

And if so,
would that contradict the faith

that billions of
people have in him,

or would it confirm it?

Perhaps the answer can be
found by examining how the bible

continues to fascinate
people around the world,

long after it was first written.

Although there
is sufficient evidence

for scholars to conclude
that the bible we read today

is quite different than the
bible people were reading

thousands of years ago,
it doesn't seem to matter.

In spite of centuries
of human tampering,

or perhaps because of it,

the bible is still
the most powerful

and influential book the
world has ever known.

The bible, without a doubt,
is the most important book

in the history of
western civilization.

People read it,
people revere it.

People think of it as
god's word to humankind.

And god had revealed the
secrets that could make sense

of the real meaning of life
and the history of the world.

Why is it that 5,000 years

after these stories were written

we still read them,
we still believe in them?

It's not because they are true,

though many people
believe them as true.

It's because they are
infinitely malleable.

That's the power of scripture,

that it can mean
anything to anyone

depending on the
time in which they live,

depending on the
context in which they live.

One of the
reasons that I think people just

keep going back to the
bible over and over again

is that it's just so full of
these fascinating mysteries,

these fascinating enigmas.

We will never know the
answers to lots of them,

but what we do know
is that it really is a text

that rewards repeated study,

rewards going back
to over and over again.

The bible says
about god himself,

"my thoughts are higher
than your thoughts.

My ways are higher
than your ways."

this is something
people don't understand,

because we come to the
bible from a point of view,

which reads the
bible in a literal way.

But when you actually
look at the greater whole

of all of the stories,

it is so beyond the limitations

of that of which
we've understood.

Look, the bible is a powerful,
powerful book,

and it's revered by
millions around the world

in judaism and christianity.

It's a book that gives
tremendous meaning

and tremendous identity

to millions and billions of
people around the world.

In that way, it's alive.

It-it gives life to people.

Every time I read the bible,
I'm struck not only

by the beauty and
the depth of its stories,

but by the way that
it gives me access,

in my own life,

to whatever it is that god is.

And so, I read it not only
'cause it captivates my mind,

but it elevates my spirit.

And I know from the
fact that it is still with us,

and has been read all over
the world for thousands of years,

that in that feeling,
I am not alone.

Does the bible continue
to inspire billions of people

around the world not because
of the answers it provides

but because of the
questions it inspires us to ask?

Questions about what
many believe to be

its inconsistencies
and contradictions.

Questions about life

and humankind's unique
place in the universe.

Questions that may
forever remain unexplained.