Interesting. I guess my thinking was that "paradigms" are mostly artifacts of a) history, and b) ways of describing ideas which at production scale may lend themselves better or worse to a given problem space (in terms of maintainability, etc), both of which are good to learn eventually, but neither of which matter that much when you're just trying to figure out what code is.
But I guess when you're just trying to figure out what code is, it helps to be able to form very consistent and concrete understanding around basic atoms like "what is a variable?". So if a language has different syntaxes that look similar but don't follow the same rules, that could get bewildering fast. Especially in languages that have sprawled over time and have competing ways of doing the same things.
Maybe the best answer is a language that was designed holistically to be cross-paradigm from the outset? In contrast with a kitchen-sink language that's gathered features over the years
Edit: Another thought; there may be a distinction to be made between "mixed-paradigm" and "cross-paradigm", where one takes the best pieces from multiple paradigms and works them together into a complete whole, while the other just dumps multiple entire paradigms into the same language. Rust for example does a great job of mixing-and-matching without sprawling (not that it would necessarily be a good first language, but for the sake of example)