In these three sections, McDowell seems to be arguing that numbers are somehow sufficient to establish truth. His claim is that the Bible has been circulated more, translated into more languages, and survived more attacks and criticisms longer than any other book; therefore, the Bible must be the word of God. Any beginning student of logic knows that truth is never decided by the number of those who adhere to a premise or claim, so there is nothing in any of these points that even comes close to establishing the truth of the Bible. Most of what McDowell said in these sections can be explained by the personal zeal and fanaticism of those who have believed the Bible through the centuries. Because of their commitment, these believers circulated the Bible, translated it, and protected it more than is usual for books. No one denies that zealous commitment has long been characteristic of Bible believers, but much more than this is required to establish the truth of any philosophical belief.
Being a Christian, McDowell would believe that although Judaism was originally instituted by Yahweh, it is no longer his true religion, but it has been the dedication of believers in this religion that has enabled it to survive through centuries of persecutions and tribulations that have far exceeded anything that Christians have had to endure. Furthermore, the circulation and survival of almost two thirds of the books in the Bible have been the result of dedicated adherents of Judaism, but McDowell would certainly not see this as any indication that Judaism is the religion that God now wants people to practice.
Much of what McDowell sees as biblical "uniqueness" is actually the result of political and social chance and circumstance. Christianity happened to take root and thrive in a geographical area that became more technologically advanced than other parts of the world, and it also enjoyed favored status from governmental institutions that suppressed opposition to it. In such circumstances, it is no wonder that the adherents of this religion would take advantage of the favored status to propagate their religion as extensively as possible. The growth and prosperity of any institution will always be the result of many factors, so it is naively simplistic of Christians to believe that their religion has thrived only because it is the "true" religion.
As for the Bible's survival of more criticisms and attacks than any other book, McDowell surely knows that public criticism of the Bible has only recently become possible where Christianity has for centuries been the dominant religion. Until the evolution of democratic ideas within the past two centuries--and even more recently than that in some places--public criticism of the Bible was punishable by imprisonment and, in some instances, even death. As recently as the 19th century, the Reverend Robert Taylor, a clergyman who became a critic of the Bible, was imprisoned in England for blasphemy as a result of publishing materials deemed offensive to Christianity. In such an environment, criticism of the Bible could not have been as widespread as McDowell apparently wants his readers to believe. Now that freedom of expression is granted by most democratic societies where Christianity is the dominant religion, there is no wonder that the Bible has become the target of widespread critical analysis. There is much in it that needs to be criticized.
While western societies have moved in a direction that permits freedom to criticize religion, this has not been so in other societies in which Christianity is just another minority religion. A critic of the Qur'an in an Islamic society takes a great risk and understands that he could be imprisoned or even executed for blasphemy. In such an environment attacks on the Qur'an will be very limited. If, however, freedom of religious expression should be adopted in Islamic societies, does McDowell doubt for a moment that Qur'anic criticisms will increase substantially?
As for the survival of the Bible, it isn't nearly as old as some holy books. Sections of the Zoroastrian Avesta are older than even the oldest parts of the Old Testament and so are many of the Hindu Vedas. To argue that the length of time a religion has survived is somehow an indicator of its truth, would make many religions "true religions." The history of religion is that they arise out of political and social circumstances of the times, thrive, decline, and die. There is no reason to believe that the same will not happen to Christianity and other ancient religions that have survived for centuries. Information is religion's greatest enemy, and in an age when information is just a few keyboard strokes away from anyone with a computer, this is going to pose a greater threat to Christianity than anything it has yet "survived."
