The book of Joshua in the Bible presents several internally inconsistent scenarios which describe the entry of Israel into Canaan, and it also conflicts with Judges and other books of the Bible. The example of the books of Joshua and Judges can be used to illustrate that multiple versions of events are given in the Bible. Any interested reader could compare the account contained in the book of Joshua with that related in the book of Judges. This sort of 'research' is not hard to do. Take a concordance (a type of dictionary of the Bible listing the passages where a given word occurs). Look up each word and compare passages.

     The book of Joshua portrays the conquest of Canaan as a single event that took place in one campaign divided into a number of stages. The end result was that the inhabitants of the land were all slaughtered.

"He left not a single survivor" (Joshua 11:8) and, "the land was now at peace," (Joshua 14:15) for, "the country now lay subdued at their feet." (Joshua 18:1)

A survey team was then sent out and reported back to Joshua who then decided how to divide up the land. Lots were then cast for each portion by representatives of the tribes. (It turns out that the lot casting is the major problem with the book as it presupposes a unitary conquest, victory, peace, and possession of the land, as described above.) The book concludes with a great meeting a Shechem, which functions as a summary conclusion to everything that took place and a call to follow God faithfully, just as God faithfully fulfilled a promise to hand over the Canaanite lands to the people (the references to fulfilled prophecy in the book come in large part from the book of Deuteronomy). Joshua died and was buried.

      If you were to continue to read on into the book of Judges the first thing you would notice is that a break in the continuity of the narrative takes place. The first line of Judges reads:

"After the death of Joshua the Israelites enquired of YAHWEH, 'which tribe should be the first to attack the Canaanites?'" (Judges 1:1)

     Notice the language used ('first to attack the Canaanites'). The premise here is that no war of conquest took place in Joshua's time, and the Israelites then proceed to a series of battles, all of which the book of Joshua relates as taking place in his lifetime.

      Now here is a really interesting example of a compounding series of contradictions. The book of Joshua tells us that he conquered Jerusalem (Joshua 12:10). The land was

"assigned to the Israelites." (Joshua 12:7)

The book contains internal inconsistencies for we are also told that,

"the men of Judah failed to drive out the Jebusites living in Jerusalem." (Joshua 15:63)

The passage is repeated again in (Judges 1:21) , with the difference that this time it is the Benjamites who failed in the conquest. You can compare this with the account in the 11th chapter of Joshua , where we are told that Jebusites were among a listing of other peoples whom Joshua,

"cut down until they had not a single survivor." (Joshua 11:8) "Their cities were destroyed," (Joshua 11:12)

and the people living there were

"put to the sword, destroying them all".

The Israelites then

"plundered the cities," (Joshua 11:14)

leaving alive only the animals, but

"every living soul they put to the sword until they had destroyed everyone. They did not leave anyone alive." (Joshua 11:14) "Jericho fought against you, as did the Jebusites, but I delivered them into your hands. I drove them out before you." (Joshua 24:11)

      With the Israelites firmly in control of Jerusalem and the Jebusites wiped out, centuries later David could freely take

"Goliath's head to Jerusalem." (1 Samuel 17:54)

The only problem with this scenario is that it turns out that the great Israeli hero who had the honor of conquering Jerusalem and the Jebusites was David himself, after he had grown up and become King.

"David went to Jerusalem to attack the Jebusites." (2 Samuel 5:6)

Now, depending on which version of events you (arbitrarily?) declare to be 'historical' either Joshua had already wiped out those Jebusites,

'leaving no one alive' (Joshua 11:14)

or, immediately after his death,

"the men of Judah made an assault on Jerusalem and captured it; they put its people (the Jebusites) to the sword, and set fire to the city." (Judges 1:8)

Or, then again,

"the men of Judah failed to drive out the Jebusites living in Jerusalem." (Joshua 15:63)

Or, then again, maybe the Benjamites attacked and failed. (Judges 1:21)

"The children of Israel dwelt among the Jebusites." (Judges 3:5)

      In David's day, the Jebusites, were apparently alive and well enough to mock him, saying,

"you'll never get in here! Even the blind and the lame could keep you out!" (2 Samuel 5:6)

David did take the city, by sneaking under the walls via the water conduit to the center of town. The only problem with this scenario is that it was King Hezekiah who constructed the water conduit, centuries after David's death. (2 Kings 20:20) I just bring all this to your attention to point out the mind numbing complications, the compounding contradictions that begin to develop once you start pulling on some of these Biblical threads by looking up a word in a concordance. It is not a matter of pulling out a loose thread here or there, rather the whole garment unravels.

      The bizarre 'editorial work' needs explanation. This certainly isn't 'history' but something else altogether, an important fact to keep in mind. In the case of Jerusalem let us just say that multiple traditions existed and who would not want to claim that it was their particular hero who took the city, even if it involved spinning some fanciful tall tales?

      Also of interest are the compounding contradictions that surface if one looks up a word, like, say, "Ammonite," or, "Moabite." In the book of Joshua we read that,

"Moses allotted to the Gadites half of the country of the Ammonites as far as Aroer, which is east of Rabbah." (Joshua 13:24) "Moses allotted to the tribe of Mannessah as their holding the lowlands of Moab east of the Jordan." (Joshua 13:31)

We find that after all this assignment of territory, that the battles were finished, and,

"the land was now a peace." (Joshua 14:15)

In the book of Deuteronomy, we find that Moses said,

"when you reach the territory of the Ammonites you must not harass them or provoke them to battle for I will not give you any Ammonite land as a possession." (Deuteronomy 2:19) "You avoided the territory of the Ammonites, thus fulfilling all that YAHWEH God had commanded." (Deuteronomy 2:37) "Do not harass Moab or contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land for a possession." (Deuteronomy 2:9)

So either Moses parceled out the territory of the Ammonites and Moabites or he did not.

      Continue pulling on this thread and other books start to unravel as well. In the 11th Chapter of Judges, Jephthah quarreled over land with the Ammonites. The Ammonites said,

"when the Israelites came up out of Egypt, they seized our land all the way from Arnon to the Jabbok and the Jordan. Now return these lands peacefully." (Judges 11:13)

Jephthah replied,

"Israel took neither Moabite or Ammonite land. They sent envoys to the King of Edom asking him to grant them passage through his country but he would not consent. The king of Moab would also not agree, so Israel journeyed through the wilderness and skirted the territories of Edom and Moab." (Judges 11:15)

Yank on this thread and another rip appears in another book. Moses is portrayed as speaking in Deuteronomy, and directly contradicts Jephthah.

"Edom granted us passage, and so did the Moabites in Ar." (Deuteronomy 2:29)

As well the Book of Joshua tells us that Moses assigned both the land of the Ammonites and the Moabites to the tribes, and that this land was parceled out by Joshua after the conquest was complete. Jephthah then concludes,

"for three hundred years we have been living in Heshbon, Aroer, and Arnon. Why did you not retake them in all that time?" (Judges 11:26)

This seems to be a retroactive admission that Israel did in fact take Ammonite land, as described in Joshua. Jephthah then attacked the Ammonites, making

'a great slaughter'. "Thus Ammon was conquered by Israel." (Judges 11:32)

(As YAHWEH had commanded Moses, and Joshua fulfilled, no doubt, or then again, as Deuteronomy insists, maybe not.)

      If we continue with account of what took place after Joshua died, as it is given in Judges, we find that after taking Jerusalem, Judah conquered the Negeb, the Shephelah, Hebron, Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai, and Debir. Of course, it turns out that the Negev, the Shephalah, Hebron, and Debir were all attacked by Joshua during his lifetime. (Joshua 10:36-40) In Hebron,

"he left no survivor, destroying every living thing in it." (Joshua 10:37)

An identical passage is used to describe the fate of Debir at Joshua's hand. (Joshua 10:39) As for the Negeb and the Shephalah, Joshua,

"left no survivor. destroying everything that drew breath, as YAHWEH the God of Israel had commanded." (Joshua 10:40)

That all these places and people indeed survive to battle Judah after Joshua's death is surely the first example of so many others in the Bible of a mass raising from the dead.

      Now as for Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai, it turns out that Caleb accomplished this feat (Joshua 15:13) and in another of the internal inconsistencies in the book of Joshua it turns out that it was also Caleb who conquered Debir. (Joshua 15:15)

      The pattern continues to the end of the book of Joshua. In Judges we are told that after Joshua's death, Judah attacked Zephath (formerly called Hormah). (Judges 1:17 -compare Joshua 12:14 ) They then took Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. (Judges 1:18) According to (Joshua 10:40) , Joshua took Gaza, killing their King at the same time as the countries mentioned in the previous paragraph, in a single sweeping campaign culminating in complete military victory, and, at the risk of becoming redundant, I point out that,

"he left not a single survivor, destroying everything that drew breath." (Joshua 10:40)

Here we have another of those interesting internal inconsistencies in the book of Joshua. In chapter 13 of the book, Joshua had become 'a very old man' and yet,

"much of the country remains to be occupied." (Joshua 13:1)

Among these areas are, wouldn't you just know it, "Gaza and Ekron." (Joshua 13:3) In Judges we are told that Joseph attacked Bethel ( (Judges 1:22) - compare Joshua 12:16 where once again Joshua gets the credit.

      Mannessah, the book of Judges states, failed in their conquest of Taanach ( Judges 1:27 - Joshua 17:11, they failed; Joshua 12:21, Joshua succeeded in taking Taanach); Dor (Joshua 12:23, Joshua took Dor); Ibleam (Joshua 12:23, he took the place; Joshua 17:11, they failed); and Megiddo (ditto). So in these cases the familiar conflict is found between the Judges and Joshua account, and the Joshua account is also internally inconsistent. Ephraim failed to take Gezer (Judges 1:29-compare Joshua 12:10 and Joshua 10:33. Joshua took the place leaving 'no survivors. He killed every living thing.' Then again, maybe not, for (Joshua 16:10) they failed to take the place.) Naphtali failed to take Beth-shemesh (Judges 1:33) or then again compare Joshua 19:22 and 19:38. The Amorites forced the Danites into the hill country, and would not allow them to come down onto the fertile plains. (Judges 1:34) This must be another example of a mass raising from the dead. You see the Amorites were beaten by Joshua in another grand, sweeping campaign (chapter 10), and as it states in chapter 11, the Amorites were destroyed, and so were their cities and the people there. They were,

"put to the sword, destroying them all." (Joshua 11:12)

All their cities were 'plundered'. (Joshua 11:14)

"They destroyed everyone. They did not leave anyone alive." (Joshua 11:14) "Joshua conquered the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites." (Joshua 12:7) "Jericho fought against you, as did the Amorites, the Perrizites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, but I delivered them into your hands. They were driven out from before you." (Joshua 24:11)

Or, maybe not, for

"they did not drive out the Jebusites." (Judges 1:21) "The children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites." (Judges 3:5)

      The Kingdom described in Joshua corresponds closely to that of the united Kingdom under Solomon. In the book of Judges the scenario is different. There is no singular and triumphant campaign of military conquest. The Israelites are confined to the less inhabited (and easily conquered) unfertile mountain ranges, with the Canaanites maintaining a firm grip on the fertile plains,

"because they had iron chariots." (Judges 1:19)

Thus we are presented with a different picture of God, a god who is easily foiled in conquest and war by those iron chariots. Conquest of the land is something that is going to take centuries to accomplish, with the justification given for this state of affairs, that God was testing the people by leaving the Canaanites in possession of the land.

"The purpose of the test was to see whether or not the Israelites would obey God's commandments."
(Judges 3:4)

Thus the Israelites were confined to the mountain ranges while the fertile plains are described as remaining in the hands of all those people Joshua had supposedly wiped out, 'leaving not a single survivor'. Included on the list of 'survivors' are,

"the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and (of course) the Jebusites." (Judges 3:5)

Even more problem surface when we consider the prophecy credited to Joshua.

"The sons of Joseph said, "The hill country is not enough for us, and all the Canaanites who live in the valley land have chariots of iron."" (Joshua 17:16)

Joshua replied,

"you shall drive out the Canaanites, even though they have chariots of iron and though they are strong." (Joshua 17:18)

In the book of Judges we are told that they could not defeat those iron chariots, and indeed, as you read along into the fourth chapter you find that the Israelites were being cruelly oppressed for decades by an enemy who were are told had 900 iron chariots. As has been demonstrated the book of Joshua is itself contradictory and it certainly conflicts with the book of Judges in this case. In Deuteronomy a regulation states that if a prophet makes a prophecy that does not come true, the person who spoke was obviously not a prophet. 'Do not be afraid of him.' So in this case we have the book of Joshua, the book of massacres and genocide, whose lead character was by the standards of Deuteronomy, a false prophet.

      There is also another excuse given for why the people could not conquer the land.

"'I will not drive out one individual of all those nations Joshua left alive at his death. Through them I will test Israel, to see whether or not they keep strictly to the way of God.' So God made no haste to drive them out or give them into Joshua's hands."

(Hmmmm. Imagine that, hey?)

"As a means of testing all the Israelites who had not taken part in any battles for Canaan, God left all these nations. God's purpose was to train future generations of Israelites in the art of warfare, that is all those who had not learnt it before." (Judges 2:21)

That was darned thoughtful of God, you must agree. How just like God, right? Always thinking ahead.

      However, God, it would seem, had second thoughts. A few chapters ahead we find that God told Gideon that there would be no training of future generations of Israelites in the art of war, because,

"Israel might claim the glory for themselves and say that their own strength has given them the victory."
(Judges 7:2) "Send the army home." (Judges 7:7)

It should be obvious that what you are reading here is not 'history', but rather a sort of 'theology'. The statement, "God's purpose was train them for war," is a theological statement. One cannot bring oneself to say, "the god of the Canaanites is winning more wars than our god." In those days one measured the strength of 'gods' in contests of military combat, with the symbolism driven home when the victorious party would take the images of 'the gods' of the losing party into captivity, often setting them up in subordinate positions in their own temples. Seen in this light the book of Joshua can be seen for what it really is-a political and religious document, dressed up as history.