It has been a common habit of the destructive critics in the past to deny any Bible statement for which there appears to be no contemporary outside evidence. To quote one Biblical example, Belshazzar is named as the last king of Babylon in Daniel 5. But as no king of this name was to be found in the king lists of the Greek historians, who designated Nabonidus as the last king, the critics accordingly declared the Bible record false and Belshazzar a fictitious character. Today, however, we have more than five hundred tablets which prove that he was co-ruler with Nabonidus. And just as the Bible suggests, Belshazzar was ruling in Babylon while his aged father ruled at Tema in Arabia.
Recent archeological discoveries have finally disposed of another of these "arguments from silence" advanced by the critics. In the book of Joshua, in connection with the occupation of Palestine by the tribes of Israel, the children of Joseph are stated to have said:
"The hill [Mount Ephraim] is not enough for us : and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron." Joshua 57:16.
At this point the critics of a few decades ago cried, "Stop !" And then they explained that there must be something seriously wrong here, because the "iron age" did not supersede the "bronze age" in the Near East, according to their estimates, till at least 1200 B.C., or more than two hundred years after the Bible date for the Israelite invasion. Consequently, they argued, if the Bible dating is right, the statement in the book of Joshua is not one of fact; while if the statement is correct, Bible chronology must be wrong. But in this, as in so many other cases, later discoveries worked havoc with the critical theory, and completely vindicated the Bible account.
The first evidence for the pushing back of the beginning of the "iron age" in Bible lands was the famous letter of the Hittite king, Hattushil III, to Pharaoh Ramses the Great, in which he regrets his inability to send any "good iron" (most probably steel), because the supply had temporarily run out; but he is happy to send Ramses an ordinary iron dagger blade. Ramses the Great reigned from 1292 to 1225 )3.C., so that this letter, which was received quite early in his reign, puts back the beginning of the iron age anything up to a hundred years earlier than the previously accepted date. This, of course, was still a long time after Joshua's conquest of Palestine, and so provided no confirmation of the Bible statement; but it showed that the last word had not by any means been said on the commencement of the iron age.
The next piece of evidence came from Egypt itself, for when the famous tomb of Tutankhamen was opened up by Mr. Carter at ancient Thebes, nineteen articles made of iron were found in addition to the more publicized objects of gold and precious stones., This Pharaoh reigned from 1365-1359 B.C., so that iron was evidently coming into use in Egypt as early as the middle of the fourteenth century B.C., which brings us still nearer the time of Joshua's invasion,
Our third source of information is the Tell el-Am arna correspondence—some four hundred clay tablets found in the archives of Pharaoh Akhenaton's capital in central Egypt. One of these letters is from the Mitannian (N. Mesopotamia) king, Tushratta, whose daughter, Tadukhipa, married Pharaoh Amenhotep III. This tablet lists among her dowry presents bracelets and daggers of iron and also steel weapons. Now Amenhotep III reigned from 1411-1375 B.C., during the period that the Israelites were conquering Palestine. Thus the iron age is definitely proved to have begun at a date early enough to harmonize with the mention of "iron chariots" in Joshua.
True, this is only a reference in the course of a letter, as distinct from actual objects of iron of this early date, but now this final and necessary piece of evidence has come to light through Doctor Schaeffer's excavations at Ras Shamra, on the Syrian coast north of Tyre and Sidon. Among his latest finds on this important site is a tempered or hardened iron battle-ax, dating from at least 1490 B.C., or even earlier, providing unquestionable evidence of a knowledge of steel-working in Syria at this time.
Commenting on his discovery in the Expository Times, Dr. J. W. Jack suggests that this battle-ax in all probability came from the same source as Amenhotep's iron dowry objects, for the Mitannian kings controlled the iron-bearing mountains of Armenia, and are now proved to have "possessed a very advanced knowledge of the technique of iron and steel." This was, in fact, "the first country to turn this metal to ordinary use." "It was undoubtedly this knowledge that contributed to the marvelous success that the Mitannian nation experienced for several centuries," he continues, "and it was not until after its conquest by the Hittites that the supremacy in iron passed to the latter people." Then he significantly adds:
"Such facts deserve to be emphasized, because the Biblical reference to 'chariots of iron' at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan has been used as an argument against the earlier date of the conquest (c. 1400 B.c.)."
