Why do historical records and archaeology not confirm widespread enforcement of Deuteronomy 18’s prohibitions during Israel’s early history?

Historical Context of Deuteronomy 18

Deuteronomy 18:9–14 lays out prohibitions against divination, sorcery, interpreting omens, witchcraft, casting spells, consulting mediums, spiritists, and calling up the dead. It declares that such practices are detestable and must not be found among the covenant people. Yet, many wonder why historical and archaeological records do not confirm a robust, widespread enforcement of these commands during Israel’s early history.

I. The Nature of Written Records and Archaeological Evidence

Archaeological findings from the era of the Judges and early monarchies are fragmentary. Writing materials such as papyrus and leather do not survive well in Israel’s climate. Inscriptions on stone or pottery often focus on royal achievements, trade, or dedicatory messages. Consequently, legal enforcement of religious regulations would not necessarily appear in the remnants we possess.

The limited documents we do have (such as the Mesha Stele from Moab, or various ostraca from sites like Samaria) concern political and economic transactions rather than religious reforms. The focus on taxes, trade, and royal conquests leaves little room to detail prohibitions similar to Deuteronomy 18.

II. Biblical Record of Israel’s Inconsistent Covenant Faithfulness

Although the Law was divinely given, Scripture itself attests that Israel struggled with pagan practices:

1. Judges Era

“In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 21:25)

During the period of the Judges, repeated cycles of disobedience arose. Archaeological investigations of sites from this era, such as the excavation at Shiloh, reflect a tumultuous environment with shifting allegiances and religious irregularities. This pattern can explain the scarcity of data for strict enforcement of laws like those in Deuteronomy 18.

2. Monarchical Period

Many of the Israelite kings disregarded the Mosaic Law or only partially complied with it. First and Second Kings recount multiple instances of idolatry and syncretistic worship. High places (bamot) proliferated, some of which included elements of pagan religious practice. These sites, sometimes uncovered by modern archaeology (e.g., at Tel Dan, Lachish, and other sites), reveal the tension between the biblical ideal and Israel’s frequent disobedience.

III. Sporadic Reforms Indicate Lapses in Enforcement

History and Scripture both paint a picture of periodic reform rather than constant enforcement:

1. Times of National Revival

Under kings like Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4) and Josiah (2 Chronicles 34:3–7), intense efforts were made to uproot pagan practices. These moments of renewed adherence indicate that before the reforms, Deuteronomy 18’s prohibitions had fallen into neglect.

2. King Saul and the Medium at Endor

A direct example appears in 1 Samuel 28, where Saul—though he had previously expelled mediums—resorts to consulting one himself. This episode testifies to the reality that even a king, despite commanding an ostensible enforcement, violated Deuteronomy 18 when personal desperation set in.

IV. Archaeological Indicators of Syncretism

Many artifacts show that Israelites sometimes blended covenant worship with local pagan practices. Archaeologists have uncovered small household idols, figurines, and altars in multiple Iron Age sites. These findings align with biblical narratives of compromise (e.g., Judges 2:11–13; 1 Kings 14:22–24). If the people routinely dabbled in sorcery or divination, the prohibition of Deuteronomy 18 may not have been systematically enforced for large periods of time.

V. Political and Cultural Pressures on Covenant Practice

Israel was geographically positioned at the crossroads of major ancient powers (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Canaanite city-states). Dominant empires and neighboring peoples exerted significant cultural and religious pressure. Intermarriages, trade alliances, and political treaties often led to the adoption of foreign customs. In such an environment, commandments like those in Deuteronomy 18 were easily neglected, and thus we find fewer indicators of rigorous enforcement in the material record.

VI. Scribal Focus: Internal Canon vs. External Documentation

Biblical scribes recorded laws, covenant renewal texts, and prophetic admonitions in texts that would become Scripture, emphasizing the spiritual and moral aspects of Israel’s story. External inscriptions, annals, and archaeological remnants were less concerned with legal or religious prohibitions. While the canonical writings meticulously preserve the necessity of obeying Deuteronomy 18, the public documents of neighboring cultures and even Israel’s own official steles generally highlight military victories, royal lineage, and monumental building projects.

VII. Conclusion: Faithful Law, Limited Enforcement Evidence

Historical and archaeological sources do not show a universally upheld enforcement of Deuteronomy 18 because Israel’s early history reflects a people often swayed by the very paganism those verses condemn. The biblical narrative remains consistent in acknowledging lapses and repeated reform movements. Archaeological silence on strict legal enforcement is not surprising, given the nature of preserved records and the reality of Israel’s periodic disobedience.

Deuteronomy 18’s timeless moral clarity stands on God’s revealed authority:

“When you enter the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn the abominable ways of those nations.” (Deuteronomy 18:9)

Still, the historical record shows that Israel did not always abide by these laws, underscoring the main thrust of the biblical account: humankind’s propensity to stray and the continuing need for divine grace and covenant renewal.