Historical Reliability Of The New Testament
The Gospels and broader New Testament have been reliably preserved, accurate in their claims about the historical Jesus, & thus with further reasoning, we can believe it is the inspired Word of God.
In comparing the Quran with the Bible, which is made up of multiple texts throughout time that was put together over time, and made official in canonical form by the Catholic Church, we have to be charitable in our approach. Much of Islam is willing to put forward the argument that: “The Quran is written beautifully, and that shows divine inspiration.” I don’t think that’s a logical argument, but I have sought answers to Muslim reasoning that there are extraordinary knowledge pieces that make it likely Mohammad was a prophet, though after investigation and analysis, I think they fall short, as I talked about in the last section. I wish Islam treated Christian belief about the Bible’s divine inspiration more charitably, rather than using the lazy excuse atheists sometimes make, that: “The Bible is an ancient storybook over thousands of years, which has definitely been corrupted by human error.” If Muslims and Christians agree that God is all powerful and can preserve His holy book(s) from errors, then why is it impossible that the Christian belief in divine revelation over time through Sacred Tradition orally, and likewise noted in the Bible, couldn’t be preserved from error? And why, again, should we trust a book(s) 600 years after a historical figure to most accurately tell the life about a historical figure, rather than a number of his closest associates, and respective historians who lived at that time, to tell us about the historical figure of that time, like the case with the Quran or the Bible in relation to the Person of Jesus.
I want to cover a brief amount of information that defends the reliability of the Bible. A good read for those looking to check out evidence for the reliability of the Gospels, in particular, since they pertain to the life of Jesus not merely His teachings, is a book by Craig Blomberg, called The Historical Reliability of The Gospels. It’s a bit of a lengthy and sophisticated read, and I personally enjoy more theology-based religious reads versus historical-based ones, but he concludes that we can trust the Gospels, and I’ll link that book by him below.
Additionally, when addressing the claim by Bible critic, Bart Ehrman, that the Bible evolved over time and was corrupted by man, like that common by Islam, in his other book Can We Still Believe The Bible? he found:
Additionally, from the following examples of evidence, we can conclude that the New Testament is reliable, and in fact, without consideration to the religious side of it, there is no reason to believe that the Bible has been corrupted in any shape or form. We have more manuscript copies of the New Testament than any other ancient historical document, and a shorter time gap, in terms of years, between original and first surviving copies of the New Testament, by far, than any other ancient historical document.
Muslims often say that: “Jesus spoke Aramaic and lived in a region amongst Jews, where Hebrew would have been most commonly spoken. Why would we trust a book and Scriptures that were spoken in Aramaic, written in Hebrew and then Greek, translated to Latin, then to German, then to other languages, and so forth? How can you know what is, in fact, the divinely inspired Word of God? The Bible clearly has been corrupted.” But as Christian apologist Nabeel Qureshi notes, when he gave this objection to a Christian prior to his conversion from Islam, the Christian gave him all of the information I have just given you about biblical manuscripts, copies, quotations from the church fathers, and so forth, proving the reliability of the New Testament, and the Christian challenging Qureshi said: “Nabeel, I just heard you talk to your mom on the phone and that wasn’t in English. Yet you, who speaks multiple languages, can translate that exact same message and conversation to me with complete accuracy, in the same way versions of the Bible written in different languages can be translated while maintaining the accuracy of the information within it.” This led to the beginning of Qureshi’s conversion, and he became a great Christian apologist dealing with Islamic studies, given his background, and he became the author of several books, including, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, and gave numerous speeches to those seeking answers about the Islamic and Christian faith. God rest his beautiful and wise soul.
Trent Horn, in a video titled How The Bible Beats Every Other Ancient Book, and I’ll link the written form of that posted on the Catholic Answers website below, he says:
Premise one. There are a set of ancient non-biblical books that have been reliably preserved to the present day. So we think of philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, historians like Tacitus and Herodotus, poets like Homer or Cicero. We would say that if you read Homer or Plato or Herodotus today, what you are reading is essentially what they wrote. We have that general assumption in academia and among common people, when we read these works that’s what was originally written. If we operate with that assumption that it’s been reliably preserved to the present day. That premise I think is pretty well established, people accept that.
Premise two. The New Testament has better evidence for its reliable preservation than these ancient non-biblical works. So then conclusion, therefore you should believe the New Testament has been reliably preserved. That logically follows, right, if you think that Plato, Herodotus, Tacitus has been reliably preserved to the present day. There is more evidence for the New Testament being reliably preserved than you should believe that about the New Testament, because it’s better than these things that you already accept.
So when it comes to the New Testament, I would say there are approximately 6,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts, approximately 6,000 and approximately 15,000 New Testament manuscripts in Latin, Coptic, Syriac and these other languages. About… I would say about 50 of them can be dated to within 250 and 300 years of the original. Our first full-length copy, our first complete copy of the New Testament, we found in the fourth century, about 300 years after Christ’s death, 250 years after the originals were written.
So even though we have, so while I made, and this will come up in the videos from Prophet of Zod and Viced Rhino, that we have thousands of manuscripts. Only a fraction of them, though, come from the first few centuries. But that is still much better than these other ancient non-biblical works. So let’s compare them. Let’s talk about Homer, the Greek poet Homer, the Iliad and the Odyssey that was originally written in the eighth century before Christ, so 800 years before Jesus was born. There’s a few fragments of the Iliad that can be dated within 500 years of that time, maybe from before the time of Christ, a few fragments that are about 500 years after the fact.
The first complete copy of the Iliad comes from a manuscript called Venetus A and it’s dated to the 10th century. It’s a medieval manuscript. The first complete copy we have of the Iliad is from 1,800 years after it was originally written. The first complete copy we have of the Bible, as I said, is about 250 years after it was originally written.
The first fragment of Homer’s Odyssey was found on clay tablets in Greece. They’ve been dated to the third century after Christ. So it’s about a thousand years after the original composition. The histories of Herodotus; Herodotus is called the Father of History. The oldest fragment we have of Herodotus’ history is about 500 years later. The works of Tacitus; Tacitus is one of our most important sources for the history of ancient Rome. He wrote a work called the Annals of Roman History. He even talks about Jesus in one of the later books being crucified under Pontius Pilate.
The dialogues of Plato… so Plato’s dialogues, the Meno, Euthyphro, we have maybe 200 to 250 manuscripts or manuscript fragments… So when it comes to Plato’s dialogue, we have these manuscripts. Usually, they are fragmentary portions, 200 to 250 manuscripts compared to the New
Testament where, as I said just in Greek, we have 6,000. So when it comes to Plato’s dialogue, we have these manuscripts. Usually, they are fragmentary portions, 200 to 250 manuscripts compared to the New Testament where, as I said just in Greek, we have 6,000.
The first complete copy of Plato’s dialogues… remember the first complete copy of the New Testament can be found 250 years later in a document called Codex Sinaiticus. It was discovered I think at St. Catherine’s monastery, at a monastery at the foot to the base of Mount Sinai, remember where Moses got the 10 Commandments or around that area. It was discovered there. It was part of rubbish and trash that was being used for heat and so it was rescued from being burnt because people didn’t know how valuable this was... It turned out to be the oldest complete copy of the New Testament 250 years after the fact. The oldest complete copy of Plato is the Clarke manuscript dated to the year 895 that places it about 1,500 years after the time of Plato.
So the biblical scholar, FF Bruce, this is how he summarizes it, “There is nobody of ancient literature in the world, which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.” But also what’s great about the New Testament is we don’t just have manuscripts to figure out what was originally said. There were Christians who were writing commentaries and epistles of their own on the biblical texts and they quote from it. Since they quote from it, that gives us a way to see, all right, well, even if we didn’t have the manuscript they quoted from, many times we have the manuscript of a church father who did quote an ancient manuscript of the Bible.
So this is what Bart Ehrman says in a more academic work that he does on the New Testament where he’s not as grand in his claims, it isn’t as popular works. This is what he says on the church fathers, “So extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.” So we have a bunch, a wealth of evidence that the New Testament was reliably preserved. If we believe that ancient non-biblical works were preserved, then you should believe that about the New Testament.
Likewise, an article by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers titled The Reliablity Of the Gospels says the following:
There are three reasons to believe that the Gospel writers were able to write reliable history.
First, they were either eyewitnesses, as in the case of Matthew and John, or close associates of eyewitnesses. Mark was a disciple of Peter (see Eusebius, Church History 3:39:15) and Luke was a companion of Paul (Phil. 23-24; Col. 4:10-11, 14; 2 Tim. 4:11), each having close collaboration with the apostles. Eyewitness testimony is gold for historiographical research.
If someone doubts the traditional authorship of the Gospels (that Matthew, John, etc., actually wrote the Gospels attributed to them), Bible scholar Dr. Brant Pitre has shown that all of the ancient manuscripts have the traditional names ascribed to them (The Case for Jesus, 16). Furthermore, it would have made no sense to have misrepresented the authorship of at least three of those Gospels, since Matthew was a despised tax collector, and Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses.
Second, the Gospels were written shortly after the events recorded. All historians agree that the closer the written records of an event are to the event, the more accurate they likely are. Such proximity puts the writer in a better position to remember what happened. Also, it decreases the chance of legendary influences altering the core facts.
So how close in time was Gospel authorship to the events the Gospels record? We can start with Matthew and Mark, which could not have been written any later than A.D. 68. The early Christian writer Irenaeus makes clear that Matthew wrote his Gospel while Peter and Paul were still alive (Against Heresies 3.1.1), and Peter and Paul died during Nero’s persecution, which lasted from 64 to 68. Most scholars agree that Mark wrote his Gospel before Matthew, placing it prior to A.D. 68 as well.
Evidence suggests that Matthew and Mark may have written their Gospels even earlier—before A.D. 62. Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles after he wrote his Gospel, and he wrote his Gospel after Matthew and Mark’s Gospels (see Luke 1:1-4). In Acts 28:16-31, Luke describes how he was with Paul while Paul was under his two-year house arrest in Rome, which many scholars date to around A.D. 60, putting the composition of Acts at A.D. 62 (Craig Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?” in Jesus Under Fire, 29).
Some scholars even push Paul’s imprisonment back two years, thus dating Acts to the year 60 (Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology). Upon finishing the chapter, and consequently the book, we notice an abrupt ending.
Luke doesn’t give any information as to what happened after Paul’s appeal to Caesar—nothing on Caesar’s response, or Paul’s death, which took place a few years later. Wouldn’t Luke, who saw it fit to record the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7) and James the Greater (Acts 12:2), have written about Paul’s martyrdom, especially after devoting ten chapters to the events leading up to and including his arrest and trials?
The likely conclusion we can draw from the omission of the remaining events of Paul’s life is that Luke was writing at the time of Paul’s house arrest and didn’t continue afterward. If this is true, we must date the Acts of Apostles no later than A.D. 62, which dates Luke’s Gospel to earlier than 62 and the Gospels of Matthew and Mark earlier still.
This means that eyewitnesses surely would have still been alive at the time the synoptic Gospels were composed, thus giving the Gospel writers reliable sources to consult with and restricting legendary developments. So it’s reasonable to conclude that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written no more than thirty-five years after the events they record, and likely even within thirty years.
These documents stand out as far more reliable than other ancient texts that are considered reliable. For example, the biographies of Alexander the Great and Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) are roughly 400 years removed from the events they record. The six sources for the life of Caesar Augustus range from ninety to 200 years after the events they record.
Comparatively, shouldn’t we trust the synoptic Gospels more, which are no more than thirty-five years removed from events, and John’s Gospel, which is roughly sixty years removed? I think the answer is clear: a thirty-five or sixty-year gap is far preferable to 400 years when evaluating the historical reliability of ancient documents.
Third, lest a skeptic think that even thirty-five years is too long to accurately remember Jesus’ words and actions, we can appeal to the following points:
The apostles were students of Jesus who lived with him for three years and received daily instruction.
The apostles would have frequently rehearsed Jesus’ teaching in their own teaching and preaching before writing them down (see Matt. 10:1-23) and thus would have solidified them in their memory.
The apostles lived in a culture in which the ability to memorize and retain large amounts of information was a highly prized and practiced skill. Ancient Greeks memorized epics from Homer (Craig Keener, “Gospel Truth: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels” in Come Let Us Reason, ch. 7), Seneca the Elder could repeat 2,000 names in exactly the sequence in which he had just heard them (Seneca, Controversia, 1. Pref. 2, 19), and the Jews memorized large portions of the Old Testament (Keener, ibid.).
The Gospel writers had oral sources that predate their final written form (Stephenson H. Brooks, Matthew’s Community: The Evidence of His Special Sayings Material).
It is likely the apostles would have made written notes while traveling with Jesus (see Blomberg, Jesus Under Fire, ch.1).
There was leadership present to ensure faithful transmission.
At this point, a skeptic may concede that the Gospel writers were able to record events accurately. But was it their intention to write history? They could have been intending to write folklore. This brings us to strategy two.
Strategy 2:
Show that the Gospel writers intended to write reliable history.
There are three reasons to think the Gospel writers intended to write reliable history. The first is that the Gospel writers record details that are not commonly found in myths and legends.
Why would the Gospels include actual historical events (e.g., the Passover, the festival of tabernacles), and historical individuals with high-ranking positions (e.g., Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the high priest, Caesar Augustus, Tiberius Caesar) if they were writing mythology?
Legends or myths usually are not concerned with real-life details. In this case, the events and names in the Gospels would have been easily subject to verification during the first century. These facts suggest that the Gospel authors meant to root their narratives in history.
A second reason is that at least two Gospel writers explicitly express their intention to write history. For example, John says, “He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth—that you also may believe” (John 19:35).
Luke also makes his historical intention clear in the prologue to his Gospel:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed (1:1-4).
Pitre notes that Luke’s prologue is similar to historical prologues written by Greco-Roman authors such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Josephus (The Case for Jesus, 79).
Three clues suggest Luke’s historical intent. The first is Luke’s usage of diēgēsis, the Greek word for “narrative.” Greco-Roman authors used this word to specify “the writing of history” (Joseph Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 1.288).
A second clue is Luke’s emphasis on eyewitnesses. Luke knows that by basing his narrative on eyewitnesses, he makes it possible for his readers to corroborate his testimony about Jesus.
Finally, Luke identifies the purpose of his Gospel as to give “the truth” about what has been taught. Luke uses the Greek word asphaleia, which is a word he uses elsewhere for “the facts” (Acts 21:34).
It doesn’t make sense for Luke to use a word that means “writing history,” emphasize “eyewitnesses,” and identify his purpose in presenting “the facts” if he intended to write folklore. The only reasonable conclusion is that Luke’s intention was to write a factual narrative, not a mythical one.
The third clue is similar: there are clear formal similarities between the Gospels and ancient historical biographies of the era, such as the Life of Josephus (A.D. 100) and Lives of the Caesars written by Roman historian Suetonius (A.D. 120). For example, as Pitre points out, the Gospels’ tripartite focus on Jesus’ birth, public life, and death is also an essential part of ancient biographies (The Case for Jesus 70-72).
Another parallel can be seen in Matthew and Luke, who include in their biographies Jesus’ ancestry (Matt. 1:1-16, Luke 3:23-38). Just as the phrase “Once upon a time” signifies a fairytale, and “Paul, to the church in Rome” signifies a letter, so genealogy signifies an ancient biography. For example, Josephus’s autobiography and Lucian’s biography of Demonax both begin by listing the subject’s ancestry (Josephus, Life, 336; Lucian, How to Write History, 55).
Scholars point to yet another parallel between the Gospels and ancient biographies: the flexibility authors take with arranging material topically or thematically. For example, Suetonius writes about Caesar August “not in chronological order but by categories” (Life of the Deified Augustus, 9). This is similar to what the early Christian writer Papias says of Mark: “[He] wrote down everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ” (Quoted in Eusebius, Church History, 3.39.15).
Finally, the Gospels parallel ancient biographies in that they do not intend to tell the reader everything about the person. Consider what John the apostle says:
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written (John 21:25).
This is very similar to what the Greek historian Plutarch says in his biography of Alexander the Great: “Multitude of deeds is so great that I shall make no other preface than to entreat my readers, in case I do not tell of all the famous actions of these men, nor even speak exhaustively at all in each particular case” (Plutarch, Life of Alexander, 1.1).
Lucian is another example. He writes in the Life of Demonax, “These are a very few things out of many which I might have mentioned, but they will suffice to give my readers a notion of the sort of man he [Demonax] was” (Life of Demonax, 67).
When the Gospel writers’ intention to write history is coupled with the fact that they were able to write history, one has good reason to approach the Gospels with a sense of trust.
Strategy 3:
Show that the Gospel writers did write reliable history.
There are three ways we can show that the Gospel writers actually wrote reliable history. First, the critical sayings and events in Jesus’ life meet the criteria that historians use to determine the historicity of a saying or event. There are many, but the most popular are multiple attestation (more than one independent source), embarrassment (details that might seem to contradict the writer’s purpose), and coherence (details fit with other known historical details).
Take, for example, Jesus’ death. The four Gospels, Paul’s epistles, the writings of the early Church Fathers, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3), and the first-century Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44) attest to it, thus satisfying the criterion of multiple attestation.
Furthermore, Jesus’ crucifixion coheres with other details we know about Jesus’ life. As we will see later, Jesus claims to be God. In the eyes of first-century Jews, such a claim was punishable by death. Therefore, Jesus’ death coheres with his claims to be divine, and it is most likely his death is a historical fact.
The criterion of embarrassment is found in multiple incidents, but the most clear is the Gospel writers’ account of women witnessing the Resurrection. As we shall see in a later chapter, the testimony of women in first-century Judaism was not taken seriously. Given such a cultural prejudice, why would the Gospel writers make women the first witnesses of the Resurrection unless it was true?
These are just a few, but there are many more details that meet the historiographical criteria and thus indicate the historical accuracy of the Gospel writers (see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the History Jesus, vol. II).
A second way we can show the Gospel writers did write history is by listing archaeological evidence that confirms Gospel details:
The nineteenth-century discovery of the Pool of Bethesda mentioned in John 5
The 1961 discovery in Caesarea of an inscription with Pontius Pilate’s name
The 1961 discovery in Caesarea Maritima of a third-century mosaic that had the name “Nazareth” in it, the first known ancient non-biblical reference
Coins bearing the names of the Herodian dynasty: Herod the king, Herod the tetrarch of Galilee (who had John the Baptist murdered), Herod Agrippa I (who killed James Zebedee), and Herod Agrippa II (before whom Paul testified)
The 1990 discovery of an ossuary that had the Aramaic words “Joseph son of Caiaphas” inscribed on it
The ossuary discovered near Jerusalem in 1968 that contained the bones of a first-century man who had been crucified, details of which confirm the Gospel narratives of Jesus’ crucifixion
Finally, we know the Gospel writers wrote history because many Gospel details are confirmed by ancient non-Christian sources. For example, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus mentions in his writings Caiaphas the high priest (Antiquities 18.2), Annas the high priest (ibid.), Pontius Pilate (ibid.), King Herod and his descendants (18.5.2), John the Baptist being killed by Herod (ibid.), James the “brother of Jesus” (20.9), and even refers to Jesus as a “wise man,” a “doer of startling deeds,” and a figure who was condemned to death by “Pontius Pilate” (18.3.3).
In his work the Annals, the first-century Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus refers to a group of people called “Christians” and describes their leader as “Christus, the founder of the name, [who] was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius” (Annals 15.44).
In light of the historiographical criteria, the archeological evidence, and the corroboration of Gospel details in ancient non-Christian sources, it is reasonable to conclude that the Gospel writers were not only able to write reliable history, and indeed meant to do so, but that they in fact did write a trustworthy record of the life of Jesus.
New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham writes, “Historical rigor does not consist in fundamental skepticism toward historical testimony but in fundamental trust along with testing by critical questioning” (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 486). Such critical questioning has been applied to the Gospels, and the answers at which we’ve arrived allow us to conclude that we can trust them.
Trent Horn on biblical historicity versus the Quran:
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. And, it's true, the very first fragments we have are about the size of a credit card. They come from the Gospel of John and they were written just a few decades after John composed his gospel. Those fragments date to about the year 125. And, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament comes from Codex Sinaiticus- that was written at around the year 360. But, between these dates, we have many manuscripts that contain entire copies of gospels and epistles. We can also corroborate this wording with the writings of the church fathers. I note all of this in my other video, How the Bible Beats Every Other Ancient Book, that we have better manuscript evidence for the New Testament than we have for any other ancient book in history. So, the New Testament is quite trustworthy. Even if the Quran were better preserved than the Bible, that wouldn't prove that we should trust the Quran over the Bible. The original copy of Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion, has been better preserved than either the Quran or the Bible. But, that doesn't mean we should take its message over either the Bible or the Quran. So, watch out when some Muslims try to attack the Bible and assume the Quran must be the only other alternative that a person should accept.
Sidenote: here, Trent talks about how God uses men in their respective situation to reveal their circumstances and personalization of it, while maintaining infallibility for them on faith and morals under divine inspiration. The example he first gives is in reference to who he baptized in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17.
Paul didn't write down whatever God told him to write down, because God would've known who Paul baptized. Instead, Paul used his own ideas and his own words to write to the Christians in Corinth. The Second Vatican Council taught that: “In composing the sacred books, God chose men. And, while employed by him, they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things, which he wanted.” That means the gospel authors… they used human conventions when writing. We have to allow the biblical text to have this flexibility. For example, in the case of the genealogies, they were never exactly recorded among the Jewish people. So, they do vary from one another. Plus, the Hebrew word for son… it's really flexible. It can mean grandson or even great grandson. This is why Jesus can be called the son of David, even though David lived a really long time before Jesus. [Islam apologist Shayk] Uthman [says]: “We can't depend our salvation on something with mistakes. That's why we have the Quran. This is not the words of the prophet Muhammad. It is not the words of companions. It's not the words of men. This is the words of the creator. That's why you will never find such a contradiction. We've been putting this challenge out for more than 20 years. We tell people, find us a single contradiction. We don't find it. People try all kinds of little ways. Never, because this is the word of the creator.”
Trent responds:
For the sake of the argument, I'm willing to concede the Quran has no internal contradictions. But, so what? A human being can write something that isn't contradictory. You need more evidence to show that what is written is not only coherent, it's divinely inspired. Now, when it comes to the Bible, I believe the Bible is inspired because there's good historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and established a Church. And that Church authoritatively teaches that these texts are the inspired word of God. In fact, one reason I doubt the Quran is inspired is because one popular interpretation of it contains a massive mistake. In fact, it denies that Jesus was even crucified. The Quran says in Surah 4:157, “And, for their saying, indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of a law. And, they did not kill him nor did they crucify him. But, another was made to resemble him to them. And, indeed those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except for the following of assumption. And, they did not kill him for certain.” This should make us seriously doubt the reliability of the Quran, because almost everyone, including non-Christians, agree that Jesus was crucified to death.
To read my full challenge to Islam, check out this link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19gVdmcMfF4woe6tbn8yaThajC2KA909O/view?usp=drivesdk