century, scholars had begun to consider the discrepancies between the books of Joshua and Judges a problem. While Joshua 10–11 portrayed Joshua's united Israelites as completely annihilating all Canaanites and capturing or destroying all their cities, Judges 1 shows many of these cities as still standing and being inhabited by Canaanites who often successfully repelled various Israelite tribes. For example, Voltaire (1776), invoking earlier observations made by Thomas Woolston, argued that either the Book of Joshua or the Book of Judges had to be false, as 'this crowd of contradictions is unsustainable.' George Foot Moore (1895) argued that Judges 1's account of the Israelite conquest of Canaan was 'of vastly greater historical value' than Joshua 10–11, as a 'gradual and partial' subjugation of the land was consistent with everything else known about subsequent Israelite and Canaanite history in the centuries thereafter, while 'the whole political and religious history of these centuries would be unintelligible if we were to imagine it as beginning with such a conquest of Canaan as narrated in the Book of Joshua'. G. Ernest Wright (1946) stated that, in his day, textual critics generally believed that Judges 1 was probably mostly written in the 10th or 9th century BCE (with verse 1 "After the death of Joshua..." 'having been added by a harmonistic editor') and 'supported by statements in Joshua 15–19', while Joshua 10 was written much later by the Deuteronomist (c. 6th century BCE) and was therefore considered unreliable. However, Wright contended that his colleagues too readily wrote off Joshua 10–11 as unhistorical due to focusing on verses 10:40–41: 'Undoubtedly it was an exaggeration to say that every single inhabitant was killed. (...) Reduce the statement to geography, and all that it claims is that Joshua took the Judean hill country with the Negeb and Shephela.' He also accused Moore and other scholars of oversimplifying the reliability of Judges 1, as it is often fragmentary, self-contradictory, and 'not in such absolute contradiction to Joshua and the Deuteronomic point of view as is so commonly assumed.' A. Graeme Auld (1998) concluded that Judges 1 was not an early document, but composed on the basis of several notes scattered throughout the Book of Joshua, and that the author attributes the northern tribes' troubled history to their failures during the conquest period. Similarly, K. Lawson Younger (1995) made the case that the composition of Judges 1 was dependent on