Contradiction with Joshua 17:12
This verse states that the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities, but the Canaanites were determined to dwell in that land, suggesting a partial conquest, whereas Judges 1:27 suggests not driving them out entirely.
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.
Contradiction with Judges 1:19
This verse notes that Judah could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron, whereas Judges 1:27 does not state the specific challenges faced by Manasseh, just the failure to drive them out.
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 16:10
It states that the Ephraimites did not drive out the Canaanites in Gezer, contradicting Judges 1:27 which reflects a similar situation with the Canaanites in other regions but does not account for Gezer specifically.
Joshua 16:10: And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute.
Contradiction with Judges 3:5-6
These verses say the Israelites dwelt among the Canaanites and intermarried with them, contradicting the goal implied in Judges 1:27 to drive out the Canaanites.
Judges 3:5-6: And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites:
Paradox #1
The potential contradiction with Judges 1:27 can arise when considering the command given to the Israelites to fully occupy the land and drive out its inhabitants, as described in earlier references like in the book of Joshua. The inconsistency stems from the fact that the Israelites did not fully drive out the Canaanites, which seems to conflict with the command to completely remove them. This raises questions about obedience and divine instructions.
Paradox #2
The potential doctrinal inconsistency with Judges 1:27 might relate to the idea of obedience to God's commands. Earlier in the Bible, God instructed the Israelites to completely drive out the inhabitants of the Promised Land. This verse describes a failure to do so, which could be seen as contradictory to the expected obedience to divine commands. This might raise questions about the consequences of partial obedience and the consistency of following divine instructions.
Paradox #3
Judges 1:27 describes the Israelites failing to fully drive out certain Canaanite inhabitants from their land. This might seem inconsistent with earlier passages in the Bible, like in Joshua, where it describes the Israelites conquering the land completely. This could potentially be a contradiction about the extent and success of the conquest.
Paradox #4
This verse might seem to show a conflict with earlier commands to the Israelites to fully drive out the inhabitants of the land. Instead, the Israelites allowed them to live there, which could be seen as not fully obeying those commands. This situation may raise questions about obedience and the consequences of not following given instructions.