Contradiction with Judges 1:19
This verse notes that the inhabitants of the valley could not be driven out due to their iron chariots, contrasting the complete possession mentioned in Judges 1:20.
Judges 1:19: And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out [the inhabitants of] the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. [drave...: or, possessed the mountain]
Contradiction with Joshua 15:63
Jerusalem's inhabitants could not be driven out by the children of Judah, contradicting the idea of full possession and displacement in Judges 1:20.
Joshua 15:63: As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.
Contradiction with Judges 2:21
It states that God will not drive out any of the remaining nations, opposing the notion of divine assistance in claiming the land in Judges 1:20.
Judges 2:21: I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died:
Contradiction with Judges 3:1-2
This passage emphasizes that God left certain nations to teach warfare, conflicting with the complete conquest suggested in Judges 1:20.
Judges 3:1-2: Now these [are] the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, [even] as many [of Israel] as had not known all the wars of Canaan;
Contradiction with Joshua 17:12
The children of Manasseh could not drive out the Canaanites, which contradicts the successful conquest narrative in Judges 1:20.
Joshua 17:12: Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out [the inhabitants of] those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency might arise because "Judges 1:20" talks about the tribe of Judah successfully capturing and controlling certain land, while other parts of the Bible, like earlier promises in books such as Deuteronomy, indicate that God had previously promised this land to them unconditionally. Any struggle or need to capture could seem inconsistent with the idea of a divine promise.
Paradox #2
There is a contradiction between Judges 1:20 and Joshua 15:13-14. Both verses describe the conquest of Hebron. In Judges 1:20, it suggests that Caleb drove out the inhabitants, while in Joshua 15, the conquest is attributed to the tribe of Judah under Caleb's leadership. This creates an inconsistency about who specifically was responsible for the conquest.
Paradox #3
This verse may show a contradiction or conflict because it depicts a situation where land is taken by force, raising questions about justice and fairness. It contrasts with other teachings in the Bible that emphasize peace and love for others.