The pre-Hasmonean period saw the rise of the Judean high priesthood in a religio-political capacity that was hitherto unprecedented. Despite a loss of political autonomy during the exilic period, the Law, and thereby the religious institutions described therein, increasingly became a source of national identity amidst a rapidly changing political landscape. The basis for the unique covenant between the people of Israel and Yahweh was found within the Torah, and the Temple represented the physical manifestation of this relationship. A breach in the sanctity of the Temple was tantamount to a breach in this divine covenant. With an increased emphasis on the sanctity of the Temple came the increased preeminence of the priests responsible for maintaining this sanctity—the high priesthood foremost amongst them. Increasingly, religious authority was coupled with de facto political and administrative leadership. 

This pre-Hasmonean religio-political function of the high priesthood, however, is a far cry from the expressly cultic role possessed by the priesthood in the periods prior to the exile, at which time the Law represented not the distinctive national identity of the nation of Israel (both politically and religiously), but the unique covenant between Israel and Yahweh. As Anderson writes, “The inauguration of the priesthood and the sacrificial altar, and as a consequence, the appearance of the ‘glory of the Lord’ (Lev. 9:23) to all Israel, constituted the very heart of Israel’s relation to its God. It was here that the drama of Israel’s relationship to God was consummated.” Given this conception of the covenant, it is unsurprising that we see that the cultic functions of the priesthood were of paramount, if not singular, importance throughout much of the Pentateuch.  

Yet, despite the centrality of the priesthood and the sacrificial cult to the emerging Yahwistic cult, given the disparity of textual attestations, neither lends itself to a simple articulation. The picture painted by the priestly materials and the Deuteronomic History is decidedly convoluted. Interspersed references to the priesthood found within prophetic literature (namely Ezra and Ezekiel) only serve to further confuse the biblical portrait. The difficulty in establishing a straightforward biblical account is further enhanced by persistent debate surrounding the precise dating each respective part of the priestly sources. Led by Wellhausen, a number of early scholars opted for an evolutionist interpretation of the priestly materials, which was based on the gradual development of the text from an emphasis upon ritualistic cultic behaviour towards a more purely ethical religious conception. The evolutionist model has since come under heavy criticism, notably by Blenkinsopp and Rendtorff, who proposed a more unified reading of the Pentateuch, the priestly sources included. Although the latter of these approaches enables a cohesive approach to the biblical texts, it nonetheless does little to solve their internal disagreements.

 In the priestly sources we see the distinct division of the priesthood by ascending orders of holiness. The Levites, responsible for ministering in and guarding the Temple, represent the lowest tier of holiness, and are depicted as servants to the Aaronite priesthood. Thus, Numbers 3:6 reads, “Bring the tribe of Levi near, and set them before Aaron the priest, that they may minister to him” (cf. Num. 18:2). 1 Chronicles 23:1 reiterates this subordinate Levitical position, “For their duty was to assist the sons of Aaron for the service of the house of the Lord.” Despite such references, it would be too hasty to conclude that the Levites merely existed to serve the Aaronites and minister in the Temple. Rather, there exists precedent elsewhere for the Levites functioning as priests themselves. Notable in particular is Deuteronomy 18:1, which describes Levites as partaking of sacrificial food: “The Levitical priests… shall eat of the Lord’s food offerings as their inheritance.” The passage goes on to stipulate the precise food allowance granted to the Levites as their portion of the sacrifice during their ministration before the Lord, a privilege which is reserved exclusively to the sons of Aaron throughout Leviticus. Deuteronomy 33:10 is similarly poignant, “[The sons of Levi] shall teach Jacob your rules and Israel your law; they shall put incense before you and whole burnt offerings on the altar.” Judges 17-18 likewise depicts Micah’s consecration of his own personal cultic site and his ordination of a Levite priest to serve there, reflecting a notion of Levites as priests which finds frequent reiteration elsewhere (Exod. 32:29; Deut. 17:9, 24:8). It becomes apparent, then, that whatever their stipulated role in Leviticus, the Levites’ functions were likely far more comprehensive than merely that of serving as ministers before the Aaronite priests, but rather extended to traditionally priestly functions: teaching the law, pronouncing judgement on uncleanness, burning incense, and making burnt offerings. 

Yet, this apparent early diversity of Levitical roles seemingly disappears in the later biblical narrative. Spencer notes that the over time the “priority of the Levites evaporates, and Aaron [and later Zadok] becomes the focal point of the priesthood.” Two explanations for this shift in priority present themselves. The first explanation is that the increased emphasis on the Aaronites may well reflect the rhetorical strategy of the priestly author, whereby he attempts to legitimize the preeminence of the Aaronite priesthood by depicting the Levites as subordinate ministers. The second explanation afforded us is that, as Spencer argues, rather than priestly divisions, the Aaronites, the Levites, and the Zadokites instead reflect different families in tension. Thus, he notes, “Aaron, Levi and Zadok all represent different priestly factions which held sway at different times and… the association of the three, as priests descended from the same family, was a later, literary and historical fabrication.” His position is worth consideration, as it rationalizes the otherwise seemingly inexplicable tension between these groups that is seen weaving throughout the biblical narrative. 

Regardless of whether they are a family faction or a priestly division, in Leviticus the Aaronites are shown to occupy the second tier of holiness, being more consecrated, and therefore more holy, than the Levites, but less so than the high priest. As portrayed by the priestly sources, they served as the “primary priestly community,” with responsibility over the proper administration of cultic rituals (Lev. 1-2), authority over the holy precincts (1 Chron. 14:19; Ex. 27:21), and the duty to teach the Mosaic Law to the children of Israel, pronouncing judgement in circumstances in which the Law was unclear (Lev. 10:10-11). However, like that of the Levites, the portrayal of the Aaronite priesthood is not consistent throughout the biblical narrative. Despite the heavy emphasis on Aaron and his sons throughout Leviticus and Numbers, they receive no allusion whatsoever within Deuteronomy, and no more than intermittent references throughout the Deuteronomistic History (within which, by contrast, the Levites receive up to seven times more references). Despite early prominence, their monopolistic status as the holy priesthood seems to have waxed by the monarchial and pre-exilic period. Thus, Spencer asserts, “[b]ased on the evidence, one is forced to conclude that the author(s) of Samuel and Kings did not see Aaron as having any significant role in the community.” Instead, emphasis is placed upon the line of Zadok, a priestly family of debated origins which appears only in Deuteronomic History, Chronicles, and Ezekiel, and which is closely associated with Jerusalem. The Zadokites sudden appearance on the scene during the monarchic period has led to a diverse array of hypotheses, few of which enjoy persuasive textual validation. However, Spencer neatly sums up the evidence, saying, “There is little question that in Samuel and Kings Zadok’s role is that of a priest to kings and temple,” a role in which the the Zadokites eventually prevail over the rival priestly family of Abiather. Even so, the sudden prominence of the Zadokites, enjoyed at the marginalization of the Aaronite priesthood, casts additional shadows onto the precise role fulfilled by the sons of Aaron during the centuries leading up to the exile. Indeed, regardless of the apparent clarity of the organization of the priesthood in the priestly sources, the later biblical narrative—namely Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings—little reflects such a cut-and-dried division of powers.

The high priest stands out as uniquely prominent amidst the priestly ranks. Consecrated as the holiest of the priesthood, unto him alone fell the ministration of the innermost part of the sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, and through his atonement was the nation of Israel itself atoned (Lev. 16:17). In this way, the high priest served as a divine intercessor through whom Israel was reconciled with Yahweh. As Rooke notes, the high priest was “seen as a part of a system of holiness whereby the gap between human and divine is bridged, but within which the boundaries are quite distinct.” Despite his preeminent priestly status, however, up until the pre-Hasmonean period the high priest’s role never exceeded the stipulated functions of his cultic office, and at all times he remains subordinate to a higher political authority. Even so, given the increased primacy of the sacrificial cult within the monarchial period, the high priest no doubt maintained considerable de facto religious authority within the cultic sphere. 

Through the teaching of the law and the execution of proper cultic procedures, the priests were held to be responsible for the maintained ritual and moral purity of the nation of Israel and, thereby, the land of Israel itself (Lev. 6:8-7). Leviticus in particular systematically stipulates the precise roles filled by the priesthood and outlines the procedures for four basic types of offering. Foremost among these is the burnt offering, in which the entirety of the sacrificial animal was consumed by the fire. The precise meaning of this sacrifice is unclear. Anderson suggests two possible meanings: 1) the burnt offering was merely a merism for a wide range of cultic procedures; or 2) the burnt offering served as a gift of food to the deity, hence Leviticus 1:27 reading, “It is a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the Lord.” In either case, the burnt offering represented some form of daily and yearly atonement conducted by the priesthood on behalf of the nation of Israel. 

By contrast, the peace offering seems to have represented a freewill gift of thanksgiving, a voluntary offering seemingly devoid of atoning symbolism. The diverse use of the peace offering, however, calls into question such reductionistic understanding of its meaning. In I Samuel 1:3-4, the peace offering serves as the basic feast day sacrifice, whereas later verses 24-28 depicts it as accompanying a religious vow. Deuteronomy 12:11-12 similarly couples the sacrifice with feasts and vows. Elsewhere, the peace offering simply represents a voluntary gift to Yahweh (Ex. 7:11-18; 3:1-17). Thus, much like the burnt offering, the precise symbolic meaning of the peace offering remains difficult to establish. However, its volitional nature sets it in stark contrast with the other obligatory sacrifices. 

The purification offering remains perhaps the most nuanced of the Yahwistic sacrifices, namely because of the complex set laws categorically outlining the acquisition of and specific purification rituals for moral and ritual defilement. In the case of moral impurity, the offering served to cleanse the individual of sin. As Klawans points out, “Moral impurity results from committing certain acts so heinous that they are considered defiling.” In the case of ritual impurity, however, the individual was not guilty of sin, but was merely considered to be in a state of uncleanness, a status acquired through a diverse number of naturally occurring and largely unavoidable phenomena. The sacrifice then represented the symbolic purification of the individual and their subsequent reconciliation with God. Klawans offers a fascinating insight into this offering, noting that moral defilement not only defiled the individual, but also the land of Israel itself, the threat against which was punishment or exile marked by the departure of God’s blessing. Purification was thus imperative for both the individual and the collective national body. Klawans goes on, “It is not that the daily sacrifice undoes the damage done by grave transgression. Quite the contrary: grave transgression undoes what the daily sacrifice provides.” This paradigm shift is important, in that it highlights the distinction between seeking forgiveness for sins committed and living a life of maintained purity. Arguably, the purification offering aimed at the latter: the creation of nation centered around maintaining moral purity gained through sacrifice. 

The final type of offering is that of the guilt or reparation offering. Unlike other offerings which involved sacrifices, the guilt offering could be converted into monetary payment. Payment aside, however, the symbolic distinction between a guilt offering and a purification offering remains unclear— each having to do with making amendment for apparent sin, whether intentional or unintentional—despite valiant attempts to clarify the apparent overlap of the two. Anderson proposes that the distinction between the two is found in the nature of the sins they address, “[T]he purification offering deals with the issue of impurity while the reparation offering deals with profanation of sacred items.” Although imperfect, this distinction is provides a sufficiently reasonable means of differentiating the two. 

The question of where and by whom such sacrifices were conducted remains to be discussed. The preponderance of the narrative of the priestly sources takes place within the context of Israel’s desert wanderings. Consequently, the priestly and sacrificial stipulations found in Leviticus and Numbers concern a period during which the sacrificial cult took place within the tabernacle; wherever the nation of Israel travelled, they were accompanied by the shrine consecrated for sacrifice. The question of where sacrifices were to take place was unnecessary. Upon Israel’s conquest and subsequent settlement of Canaan, however, the tabernacle loses its primacy as the focal point of the sacrificial cult. Indeed, the book of Judges exhibits little evidence of the continuation of the Yahwistic sacrificial cult at all. The sacrificial cult earns more mention within the Deuteronimistic History, albiet in the context of a plurality of sacrificial sites. Throughout Samuel, Shiloh is emphasized as a prominent cultic site (I Sam 1:3), and the prophet’s later censure of Eli and his sons is indicative of their possessing some prominence as Israel’s priests (I Sam. 2:28-31). Nob too is highlighted as an important cultic site, officiated by Ahimelech, who himself portrays many indications of possessing the high priesthood (I Sam. 21). Similarly, under David and Solomon, Jerusalem gains new precedence as the central site of sacrifice and cultic worship (II Sam. 8). Elsewhere the historical narrative displays an equally complex multiplicity of cultic sites (I Sam. 13:9; 17-18; II Sam. 1:9), and, in some instances, it remains further unclear whether such sacrifices were officiated by the priests at all (I Sam. 20: 6; II Sam. 1:9), although Leviticus explicitly specifies that sacrifice is to be conducted by the sons of Aaron. It may be concluded, then, that until the post-exilic period, there neither existed no set cultic site nor, therefore, a single organized priesthood to serve there. 

In light of the nebulous historical data above, there remains little textual basis to conclude that, regardless of the streamlined organization of the priesthood in Leviticus and Numbers, the sacrificial cult enjoyed any notable level coherence or centrality throughout the period Judges and into the early Monarchial period (perhaps even later). The three-tiered levels of holiness set forth in Leviticus find little adherence elsewhere in the biblical narrative, nor, in fact, does the textual evidence point to any consistent observance of the sacrificial cult itself. Indeed, despite intermittent periods of religious reform and centralization, the idealized priestly portrait painted by the priestly sources would find little realization until the post-exilic period. 

Bibliography

• Bibliography  
• Anderson, Gary A. ‘Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings: Old Testament.’ In David Noel Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992. 
• Klawans, Jonathan, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 
• Moore, Michael S. ‘Role Pre-emption in the Israelite Priesthood’, Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996), 316-29.
• Rooke, Deborah. Zadok’s Heirs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Spencer, John R. ‘Priestly Families (or Factions) in Samuel and Kings’, in Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström. JSOTSup, 190; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
• Van Hierden, Chelsia. “Politics and Priesthood: The Rise of Militant Nationalism in the Pre-Hasmonean Period,” [Undergraduate Thesis, 2016].