Contradiction with Joshua 19:47
Contradicts by indicating the Danites had their inheritance but sought more territory, unlike in Judges 1:34 where they are restrained.
Joshua 19:47: And the coast of the children of Dan went out [too little] for them: therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father.
Contradiction with Judges 18:1
Metaphorically contradicts by stating there was no king, leading to the Danites seeking more territory, suggesting a lack of suppression by Amorites.
Judges 18:1: In those days [there was] no king in Israel: and in those days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in; for unto that day [all their] inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel.
Contradiction with Judges 3:1
Mentions nations left to test Israel, suggesting a divine purpose rather than being oppressed.
Judges 3:1: 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 21:44
States the Lord gave them rest and no enemy stood against them, contradicting Judges 1:34 where Danites are pressed.
Joshua 21:44: And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
Paradox #1
The potential contradiction in Judges 1:34 could involve the Israelites' failure to drive out the Canaanites from the land, which seems inconsistent with God's command to take possession of the land fully. This raises questions about the Israelites' faithfulness and God's promises regarding the land.
Paradox #2
The potential contradiction in Judges 1:34 relates to different accounts in the Bible about the tribes of Israel and their territories. In some parts of the Bible, it is noted that the Israelites successfully drove out the inhabitants of the land, while in other parts, like Judges 1:34, it suggests that certain tribes, like the tribe of Dan, struggled to do so. This inconsistency highlights the challenges in fully understanding the historical and geographical distribution of the Israelite tribes during that period.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or inconsistency could be seen in the theme of territorial control and subjugation. In this context, it may seem conflicting that one group is dominating another, which can raise questions about the ideals of justice, coexistence, and respect for others' rights. This can be at odds with broader values such as compassion and fairness.