The ancient Near East offers a wide variety of ritual personnel due to regionally differing systems of polytheism. As a rule, the priest or the priestess is the main ritual expert: He or she acts as mediator between the Divine (gods and goddesses) and human society or the individual, performs the rituals in the cult, and cares for the gods and goddesses. Other officiants, priests and non-priests, take over various tasks within the cult or in support of the activities at the temples. Often the king does not officiate in the cult, but he has the main responsibility to keep up the sanctuaries, their personnel, and the cult. As the priests and other ritual experts perform functions and tasks for the community, they get their alimentation by the state (the king). In many cases they are separated from the common to preserve their ritual purity and the dignity of their office (Sallaberger and Huber Vuillet, 2005, 617; Jean, 2011).
Over three millennia the ancient Near Eastern religious culture developed in various regions quite differently. The Assyrian king for example, is the representative of the god Ashur on earth and officiates as the high priest of the god Ashur. In Babylonia, on the contrary, the king has to respect the position of the high priest, who ritually humiliates the king during the New Year Festival in order to remind him that he is a humble servant of the gods. However, some basic aspects appear in Mesopotamia as well as in other areas in more or less the same way. Priests and priestesses are members of the elite or upper class; they derive their origin from a priestly family of old or from the house of the king. Even at smaller sanctuaries, the office of the chief administrator of a temple (Sumerian, SANGA, Akkadian, šangû) is handed down in one family over generations (Sallaberger and Huber Vuillet, 2005, 629; Jean, 2011). As part of their office the priests cultivate a certain amount of specific knowledge and traditions.
The temples get their maintenance from the king (who thus proves his care for the gods), and from the offerings of the cult participants. These offerings, usually food, are offered to the deities; the gods and goddesses take their share, and the “remainder” is distributed among the priests, the king’s officers, the princes, and other persons working for the sanctuary (Jean, 2011).
Ritual purity is a major condition for officiating in the cult: (a) The priests and priestesses must be free of any physical blemish. This is also a prerequisite for an Israelite priest according to Lev 21:16–23. (b) The officiating personnel must wash the body with water and dress in clean and usually white garments (see also Lev 16:4). (c) In order to initiate a priest into his office and to separate him from the common people, the person has to be entirely shaved (hair and beard). Being shaved (gullubu, to shave) thus can even serve as an identification of those who are allowed to enter the sacred precinct as ritual experts or auxiliary staff along with the offering person. Iconographic representations usually depict priests with no beard and no hair, wearing high conic or pointed hats or caps with a beaded rim (Seidl, 2005, 643). This marks a major difference to the Hebrew Bible: Israelite priests are not allowed to shave their hair and officiate with a bald head (Lev 21:5; Ezek 44:20). Priestesses are either shaved, like Baal’s high priestess at Emar (the NIN.DINGIR, 13th century bce; see Fleming, 1992, 50.292), or seem to adorn their garments and imitate the hairstyle of the goddesses of their time, wearing a hair circlet instead of the horned crown of the deity (Seidl, 2005, 646). The highest priestesses (Sumerian, EREŠ.DINGIR; Akkadian, ēntum) and highest priests (Sumerian, EN; Akkadian, ēnum) serve the major deities of the main sanctuary. However, the institution of a high priestess is limited to some temples in the southern area of the Old Babylonian Empire. She is regarded as married to the god and takes care of him as long as she lives (see, e.g., Fleming, 1992, 291–293). In later times and most other areas, only men officiate as high priests (Sallaberger and Huber Vuillet, 2005, 626–628).
Below the high priest (or priestess) there is a hierarchy of priests according to their competences and tasks in ritual practice and juridical documents: the šangû functions as the administrative leader of a sanctuary. The cult priest (Sumerian, GUDU4; Akkadian, pašīšu, priest, literally: anointed one) takes care of the gods and goddesses, the offerings, and the rituals. The purification priest (Sumerian, IŠIB or SÁNGA.MAḪ; Akkadian, išippu or šangammāḫu, also translated as “exorcist”) cleanses and purifies the temple, the vessels, the equipment, and the personnel by means of water, oil, frankincense, and incantations (Jean, 2011).
Other ritual roles or functions (not necessarily priestly ones) are the conjurer or “exorcist” (Sumerian, LÚ.MAŠ.MAŠ; Akkadian, āšipu), who protects the royal palace and the fields from evil demons, and the diviner or “seer,” who interprets various signs in nature and oversees the omens. This task is akin to the “prophet” (the ecstatic), who transfers divine messages to the king and the temple. The following ritual experts belong to the temple personnel (they are shaved!), but are not regarded as priests: Musicians do their work to appease the deities (singers of lament or lamentation priests, Sumerian, GAL; Akkadian, kalû) or to accompany the rituals with or without instruments, singing as soloists or in choirs (Sumerian, NAR; Akkadian, nâru). The cupbearer who is closely related to the king is responsible for the process of the offerings, especially the libations and the sacred vessels. The nadītum is a religious function especially for women: Daughters from families of high esteem are dedicated to deities and their sanctuaries; they remain childless and live in a kind of nunnery (Sallaberger and Huber Vuillet, 2005, 628–635). Other non-priestly tasks associated with the cult are the gatekeeper, the housekeeper (cleaning the temple yard), the brewer, the baker, and other craftsmen.
The Mari archive of cuneiform tablets does not stem from a temple, but from the royal palace, mostly from the time of king Zimri-Lim (18th century bce). We have relatively good information about the administration and economy of the sanctuaries, but the evidence about cult and temple personnel is scarce. The most common male officiant is the šangûm (Sumerian, SANGA, see previous subsection), who is the primary authority in a temple. There were also priestesses of a high rank (nin-dingir[-ra]). Although described with similar terminology, the Mari temple personnel cannot be directly equated with the Babylonian ones; the Syrian temples may have represented much smaller communities than their Babylonian counterparts (Fleming, 2004b, 54).
The Mari tablets are well known for their proximity to biblical prophecy (Cancik-Kirschbaum, 2003). Two principal titles are assigned to men and women who speak on behalf of a god: the āpilum and the muḫḫûm. The āpilum is usually translated as “answerer, interpreter,” especially since the āpilum at times have an admonitory and critical stance towards the king (see Merlo, 2004). The muḫḫûm forms some kind of “ecstatic” prophecy. Both words also occur in a feminine form (āpiltum, muḫḫûtum), and they are frequently related to an individual deity whose message is delivered. Less frequently the following titles appear: the qammatum (female, unclear function), the assinum (servant of the goddess Annunitum), and the nābû (Plural). The nābû take part in an inquiry about the king’s immediate future. One special way of divination is carried out by specialists with the title bārûm: They take omens from the entrails of slaughtered sheep (extispicy). The diviners are not employed by the temple but by the palace (Fleming, 2004b, 51–56).
Most of the basic aspects mentioned earlier also apply for Hittite Anatolia. The cult is organized by the state (the king). The “Instructions for Temple Personnel” (CTH 264) offers insights into everyday situations of the priests; however, there is no proof that the office was hereditary. The priests have to carry out the cult in accordance with the prescriptions, with respect towards the gods, and in loyalty with the king. Ritual purity is important; after sexual intercourse, the priest must perform purifying rituals before officiating (Klinger, 2005, 640–641). The king plays an eminent role within the cult, functions as the highest priest, and takes part in almost all ritual feasts in Hatti. His life is entirely ritualized (Haas, 2011, 210–214). He carries out certain rituals (offerings, libations) himself, but mainly various cult officials act as his representatives. Some Hittite kings call themselves “priests” in non-cultic texts. Priests (ordered in higher and lower ranks, carrying out special tasks, such as purifying rituals) and various other officials (singers, craftsmen; male and female experts for certain rituals to appease the gods and to heal humans; Haas, 2011, 217–219) act in many sanctuaries in the capital, but also at many religious places within and beyond cities throughout the whole Hittite empire. One has to assume that the number of persons active in the cult, especially the number of priests, was considerably high (Klinger, 2005, 641–642).
In ancient Egypt the priesthood is a major institution in society (Teeter, 2011, 16). Many officials hold priestly titles and do their duties as priests in temples on a part-time basis (e.g., one month a year, according to certain orders, the so-called phylai, see Clarysse, 2010, 287; Teeter, 2011, 35), while the rest of the time they pursue other professions (Spencer, 2010, 255.257.269). Full-time priests are attested since the New Kingdom (Teeter, 2011, 35). Being a priest is not only a matter of prestige but also—even more important—a matter of income, because the job is well paid (Clarysse, 2010, 288–289). Most of them work as wab-priests, a lower-level position, in which they are mainly responsible for carrying offerings both in the temple and funerary cult (Teeter, 2011, 20–21). Wab means “the pure one”—referring to the strict rule of ritual purification for priests before entering the temple. This includes not only washing but also food (no pork, no fish where a fish is an emblem of the nome, a subnational administrative division of ancient Egypt) and garments (only linen, no leather or wool; Teeter, 2011, 17–18.32–34; Clarysse, 2010, 277). While in theory, the king is the sole officiant before the gods (many reliefs depict the king offering in front of a deity or several gods), a priest as his proxy performs the official daily ritual in the temples all over Egypt on his behalf (Clarysse, 2010, 276–277; Teeter, 2011, 16.47). Since the New Kingdom, the most powerful position in the temple hierarchy is that of a High priest (hem netcher tepi; literally: “First God’s Servant/priest”) followed by the Second priest (hem netcher snnw). One or more Third and Fourth priests and still lower hem netcher priests are responsible for the daily offering ritual and therefore have access to the inner parts of the temple, namely the “Holy of Holies” in which the cult statue of the deity is located in a shrine or naos. The it netcher (“God’s Father”) could be a father-in-law of the king and is involved, for example, in the statue ritual (Teeter, 2011, 22–25). Another high ranking title mentioned in the sources is sem. The sem priest is in charge of the “Opening of the Mouth Ritual” in which he magically enlivens a statue or mummy by using a set of special tools. He wears—like the iwnmutef priest (another funerary priest)—a leopard skin on top of his garment and often a sidelock (Teeter, 2011, 24–25). By a sash that crosses his chest and a papyrus roll in his hand the lector priest (khery hebet) is characterized as a literary specialist with the main function of reciting ritual texts, e.g., during mummification rituals and the following funerals to protect the deceased on his journey through the afterlife (Teeter, 2011, 22). The hem ka (“servant of the Ka”) is responsible for the funerary cult and the daily offerings to the dead. Ideally, this position is occupied by the son of the tomb owner (Teeter, 2011, 21–22). One becomes priest by personal election by the king or, more commonly, through inheritance from one’s father. Some texts contain long lists with names of priests from the same family over many generations (Teeter, 2011, 28–30; Clarysse, 2010, 287). The priests get their remuneration through “reversion offerings” (Teeter, 2011, 36). The priests offer food and other materials to a deity in offering vessels, on offering plates and altars. The deity gets time enough to take whatever she or he desired. Then the priests carry the “remainder” on to the next altar in front of a statue or relief of another deity (according to a certain order), and so on. Finally, the priests get all that is “left over” for themselves (see also Spencer, 2010, 264, and 268 for the remuneration of priests).
Female priests are attested for every time of Egyptian history, but their number is limited and their roles often inferior. In the Old and Middle Kingdom they serve as wabet (female wab) and hemet netcher (priestess) mostly for goddesses, e.g., Hathor or Neith. While during the New Kingdom women seem to be restricted mainly to musical activities in cult (e.g., as singer or sistrum players), another rank simultaneously becomes more and more important with its peak during the Third Intermediate Period: that of the “God’s Wife of Amun” (Teeter, 2011, 26–28; Spencer, 2010, 258).
The Hebrew term for “priest,” kohēn (plural: kohanîm), occurs 750 times in the Hebrew Bible (and eight times in the Aramaic parts of Ezra). Its etymology is uncertain (Haran, 2007, 513). The Book of Leviticus contains 26 percent of all occurrences (2 Chronicles: 12 percent; Numbers: 9 percent). Only males are “priests,” the term is never applied to females (see Wegner, 2003, 451–465). “Priest” is a multifaceted term with a variety of meanings and concepts in various religions past and present. Hence one has to unfold the specific concept of “priests” within the Hebrew Bible, which also differs from the current usage of the term in Christianity and Judaism. Although the Book of Leviticus establishes the priesthood during the wandering in the wilderness at Mount Sinai, this narrative almost certainly mirrors the conditions at the temple of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. The priest comes into his office not through an individual, divine vocation, but rather through birth and genealogy (e.g., Himmelfarb, 2012, 37–38). According to the concept of the Priestly Code (P), all priests trace their origin back to a certain family within the tribe of Levi: they are all descendants of Aaron (Aaronides). The members of this lineage are introduced into their task in a special ordination ritual (see Leviticus 8–9): In a rite de passage, the male member of the priestly family leaves the realm of ordinary life and passes over to the service at the sanctuary.
Inside the sanctuary, the priests perform two major tasks (Hieke, 2014, 112–116). First, they serve at the altar. Especially the blood rites, the approaching of the altar, and the maintenance of the fire are priestly prerogatives. Hence, the priests are mediators between the offering person and her everyday life on the one hand and the realm of the divine presence at the altar and in the sanctuary on the other. The basic Hebrew term for the priests’ activities is kipper, “to atone for” or “to mitigate:” “the responsibility of the priest is to ensure the survival of the relationship between God and the people” (Bibb, 2009, 85). The central point of the rites is the application of small amounts of blood to the altar or the curtain that screens the Holy of Holies within the sanctuary. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies with the blood of sacrificed animals and atones for all the iniquities and transgressions of the people of Israel, all their sins (Lev 16:16). In a second rite, the High Priest confesses over the head of a living goat, which is sent into the wilderness (the scapegoat: Lev 16:21). Additional tasks of the priests within the sanctuary refer to the sacrifice of oil at the lamp (menōrâ) and the preparation of the bread for the Tabernacle (bread of the Presence), both of which represent the Israelites (lay people, non-priests) within the sanctuary (Exod 25:30; Lev 24:1–9).
The second major task of the priests concerns distinguishing and teaching. According to Lev 10:10–11, the priests shall “distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean,” and they shall teach the Israelites accordingly. Many statutes in Leviticus and other passages of the Torah indicate which persons, areas, utensils, garments, and sacrifices are “holy” (or even “most holy”)—the priests must teach non-priests how to distinguish the holy from common in all these areas. The same holds true for distinguishing between “clean/pure” and “unclean/impure:” When is an animal suitable for sacrifice (Leviticus 11; 22:17–33)? When do certain circumstances (skin diseases, Leviticus 13; discharge from genitals, Leviticus 15; touching a corpse, Numbers 19) prevent human beings from participation in the cult? Lay people need to know about these issues; hence the priests have to teach them the statutes of the Lord. Malachi 2:6–7 describes the ideal of priestly teaching; the priest is the messenger/angel of Yahweh. The high esteem and authority of the priests corresponds to the harshness of the prophetic critique of the priests when they fail to accomplish their important tasks and the expectations towards their way of living (e.g., Amos 4:4–5; 5:21–24; Mic 3:11–12; 6:6–8).
A third task of the priests, differing significantly from the major tasks described earlier, is the blessing of the people (Num 6:22–27; Deut 10:8; see Haran, 2007, 518; Hieke, 2014, 117). Numbers 6:23 first states “Thus you shall bless the Israelites” (i.e., the priests bless the people), then Num 6:27 underscores that they “only” shall put God’s name on the Israelites, while Yahweh himself will bless the people. The role of the priests can be summarized with the terms “mediator” and “representative.” As mediators, the priests maintain the communication between God and his people Israel (Marx, 2005, 133). As representatives, the priests have a dual role. When they teach the people, the priests are representatives of God, promulgating his will and commandments. When they serve at the altar, sacrificing the holy offerings of Israel, they are Israel’s representatives in front of the deity (Péter-Contesse, 2003, 199). Thus the priests within this system have a high degree of responsibility accompanied by high privileges. However, to some degree they serve all Israelites, as all know about the ritual prescriptions (Bibb, 2009, 98).
In order to fulfill all expectations and achieve all tasks, the priests must be prepared in a specific way. This concept is expressed by the term “holiness” (Hieke, 2014, 117–118). Certain restrictions regarding the body, the beard, the touching of corpses, and marriage apply for priests. Male members of a priestly family with a visible disability of the body (mûm) get the usual income, but are not allowed to officiate at the altar (Leviticus 21). While enacting the duties of their cultic office, the priests must not drink alcoholic beverages (Lev 10:8–9; Ezek 44:21). Thus, the special holiness of the priests is not restricted to cult or ritual activities alone, but is also related to certain expectations of the community regarding their social behavior (Bibb, 2009, 161–162).
The term “Levites” applies to members of the tribe of Levi as well as to servants (or ministers) at the sanctuary (in Jerusalem). In the latter usage, “Levites” are ritual experts, however, they perform different functions in the various parts of the Hebrew Bible (see Hieke, 2014, 116–117 with further references; Labahn, 2014).
In Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through Kings), the Levites are a group in need of support by their fellow Israelites (e.g., Deut 12:12, 18; 14:27, 29; 26:11–13). This concept probably mirrors the problems of priests (from the tribe of Levi) who once served at local shrines and subsequently lost their income due to the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem, especially after the reform of King Josiah in 622 bce (see the subsections The King, and Before and During the First Temple Period). The term “the levitical priests” (e.g., Deut 17:9, 18; 18:1) intends to put “Levites” and priests with a different genealogical provenance in the same category. One can interpret this concept either as an attempt to create some balance between different groups of priests or as a program to derive all priests genealogically from the tribe of Levi.
In the (post-exilic) priestly literature, the Levites form a clerus minor and are subordinated to the priests who derive their genealogical descent from Aaron (e.g., Num 3:5–10; 8:5–26; 18:2–7). This relationship probably is not without frictions; the conflict narrated in Numbers 16 may reflect rivalries among the Temple personnel in post-exilic times. Here, the Aaronide priests reject claims of the Levites for priestly services (and prebends). The hierarchy of the priestly system is described in the five-tiered structure of the Temple ministry in Ezra-Nehemiah (e.g., Ezra 7:7: “the priests and Levites, the singers and gatekeepers, and the temple servants”; see also the variant in Neh 7:72; 10:29). The Levites hold the second rank and thus are subordinate to the priests. This corroborates the concept of the post-Ezekiel utopia of Temple, city, and land (Ezekiel 40–48): The Levites are not allowed to serve as priests or to touch the sacred offerings; they are relegated to supporting tasks like gatekeeping and slaughtering the animals (see Ezek 44:10–14). The major tasks of offering and serving at the altar are reserved for the “levitical priests, the descendants of Zadok” (Ezek 44:15).
Chronicles, however, sketches a multifaceted picture of the Levites. They are still the clerus minor preparing and supporting the rituals at the Temple (e.g., 1 Chr 9:26–34; 23:28). They minister as singers and musicians with special expertise. They serve as gatekeepers. Later on they are entitled to prepare and slaughter the Passover lambs and sanctify themselves and the lambs of those who were ritually impure (2 Chr 30:17; 35:6–14). Here the Levites begin to take over prerogatives of the priests (Labahn, 2012, 122–165). Thus, the Levites are regarded as “holy” (e.g., 2 Chr 23:6; 29:5) and elected by God (1 Chr 15:2; 16:41). Moreover, the Levites carry out various administrative tasks inside and outside of the temple (scribes, officers, judges). Finally, the Levites also function as prophets (1 Chr 25:1–5; 2 Chr 20:14) and teachers (2 Chr 17:7–9; 2 Chr 35:3; see also Neh 8:7–11: the Levites work as interpreters of scripture). The Levites take over the task of teaching the commandments that more and more were codified in written form (the emerging “Torah”), see, e.g., Neh 8:7–8; 2 Chr 17:7–9; 2 Chr 35:3. From a sort of second-class clergy, the Levites emerge as an important group responsible for administration and teaching.
Within Biblical Hebrew, there is no specific term for “cult prophet.” However, there probably was a certain class of cult officials who had to advise the king by figuring out the divine will (e.g., Ezek 7:26; in analogy to the praxis in the ancient Near East, see above). This sort of “prophet” works at the temple like the priests and the sages (see Jer 18:18; 2 Kgs 23:2; Lam 2:20). Several passages criticize these officials for being incompetent or corrupt (e.g., Isa 28:7; Jer 2:8, 26; 4:9; 5:31; 6:13; 8:10; 23:11; Mic 3:11; Zeph 3:4). Some scholars explain the change of mood in certain Psalms of Lament (e.g., Pss 22:23; 54:8; 57:8; 59:17–18) as the result of an oracle of salvation uttered by a cult prophet.
In the ancient Near East, one of the major tasks of the king is to provide a temple for the god of the state. Israelite kings also establish sanctuaries and assure their income. The biblical perspective regards the temple in Jerusalem as the only legitimate place of worship, and thus the king’s deeds are measured by his ability to maintain the purity and unity of the cult in Jerusalem. All northern kings are regarded as evil in the eyes of Yahweh, because they followed the “sin” of Jeroboam I, who erected cultic icons and sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel. Judean (southern) kings are also criticized for their wrongdoings in cultic matters. Only Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1–5) and Josiah (2 Kgs 23:4–20) are praised for reorganizing and purifying the Jerusalem cult. The king’s task is to maintain the cult, which is carried out by priests and Levites; however, biblical texts are critical of the king’s claims to officiate personally before Yahweh. Saul (1 Sam 13:8–15), Jeroboam I (1 Kgs 12:28–33), and Uzziah (2 Chr 26:16–21) get severe punishment for their transgression of competences.
In the Hebrew Bible, one main task of the priests was to offer the gifts of the Israelites as sacrifices on the altar in the sanctuary. Leviticus 1–7 provides instructions for offering sacrifices. These instructions are open to the public and not an arcane knowledge reserved for the priestly elite. Most sacrifices are voluntary, not obligatory, offerings (see Leviticus 1–3). Only in cases of inadvertent sins (Leviticus 4–5) and at certain feasts (Numbers 28–29) are the Israelites commanded to bring gifts for offering. Leviticus 1:2 introduces the offering person with the word ʾādām, “a human being,” a gender neutral or gender-inclusive term (like nepeš, “someone”). Thus, one must assume that men and women alike have the opportunity to bring gifts for sacrifice. The offering person presses her hand on the animal’s forehead (Lev 1:4) in order to indicate that the offering is performed on behalf and for the benefit of the person who is carrying out the hand-leaning rite. Hence, the sacrificial ritual marks a personal encounter between the offering person and the deity. However, because a direct contact between Yahweh and the Israelite is not possible (the holy God and the sinful human being cannot directly come together), the priests and the altar function as bridge and medium. The offering person’s next task after the hand-leaning rite is to slaughter the animal, a necessary and unspectacular procedure (Lev 1:5). The priests ritually dispose of the blood and arrange the pieces of the animal on the altar fire, which sends them to heaven in smoke. According to Ezek 44:11, the Levites take over the task of slaughtering, and according to the Septuagint, the priests slaughter the animal. Hence, there is a later tendency to put more and more duties in the hands of ritual experts. The Israelite non-priest thus has only two opportunities to take part in the cult: to bring gifts for sacrifice and hand them over to the priests (Leviticus 1–2) and to take part in the “sacrifice of well-being” according to Leviticus 3, i.e., to partake of the meal with meat in the context of a community (larger family) who celebrates a feast at the sanctuary (Lev 7:11–21). In order to participate, the person needs to be in a state of ritual purity (according to the laws of Leviticus 12–15).
As indicated earlier, women are allowed to bring gifts (e.g., animals) for sacrifices, and they may perform the hand-leaning rite and even slaughter the animal. Like male Israelites (non-priests), women are not authorized to approach the altar. Thus, male and female Israelites have the same rights regarding the cult; however, only male members of the priestly families are permitted to officiate at the altar (after their ordination, see Leviticus 8). There are no Israelite priestesses attested in the Hebrew Bible. Hence, all cultic prescriptions found in the Hebrew Bible are most probably designed and written by (male) priests.
Despite the impression one might get from modern Bible translations, there is no sacred prostitution or cult prostitution mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The “myth of sacred prostitution” (Budin, 2008) emerged in lexicography and exegesis. The problematic term is the Hebrew masculine and feminine adjective qādēš/qědēšâ (from the root QDŠ, “to be holy”). Etymologically related are the Ugaritic terms qdšm (masculine) and qdšt (feminine), which refer to men and women who have some relation to the cult (cultic servants; consecrated women; Lipiński, 2013, 14–15). There probably was some sort of cultic sexuality in the ancient Near East and in Canaan associated with conjuring the fertility of herds and fields (the hieros gamos), but one would never call that prostitution. Some sort of prostitution may have existed in areas surrounding the sanctuaries in Canaan and the ancient Near East, because the sanctuary attracted larger numbers of pilgrims. But this kind of sexual service one would not call “sacred” or “cultic,” even if the temple might participate in the business.
In the Hebrew Bible, sexuality is entirely banned from the sanctuary, since sexual intercourse causes ritual impurity for one day (Lev 15:18). The linguistic use of the adjectives qādēš/qědēšâ probably develops in the following way. Various biblical texts use the root ZNH/זנה “to be / act as a harlot / prostitute” as a metaphor for Israel’s faithlessness towards Yahweh and the people’s veneration of foreign gods; especially the prophets Hosea (e.g., Hos 4:13–14), Jeremiah (e.g., Jer 2:1–4:4), and Ezekiel (especially Ezek 16 and 23) employ this sort of accusation (Stark, 2006, 209–215): Every cultic action that is not related to or commanded by Yahweh is a despicable act of harlotry. However, none of these prophets mention the phenomenon of “cult prostitution;” they probably do not know about such a thing. According to Hos 4:14, the priests and/or the Israelites perform illicit cultic acts with qědēšōt, and the prophet calls these forms of veneration of foreign gods “adultery” and “harlotry.” The acts themselves have nothing to do with sexuality or prostitution; the terms function as a metaphor. But at some point in history, the metaphoric use influenced the language of the real things, and thus the terms qādēš/qědēšâ (once used for “foreign cult,” see 1 Kgs 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; 2 Kgs 23:7) became a synonym for the root ZNH: harlot, male/female prostitute. As such a synonym, not as a cult participant, the terms are used and best understood in Gen 38:21–22 and Deut 23,18 (Stark, 2006, 217–218).
Children are not able to bring gifts for sacrifices, but they probably take part in the meal following the well-being offering (Leviticus 3; 7:11–21). The children of the priestly families get their share from those offerings that the priests do not have to eat themselves in a holy place but which they are allowed to pass on to the members of their family.
There is no epigraphical or archaeological evidence of child sacrifice in the area of Israel/Palestine. Inscriptions and artifacts found in Northern Africa (Carthage) are not easy to interpret and hardly allow conclusions to be drawn in respect of different time and region. 2 Kings 3:27 may contain a trace of a singular and absolute extraordinary child sacrifice by the king of Moab (causing a great wrath upon Israel); all other biblical passages mentioning something like child sacrifice are highly polemical and draw their effect from the fact that child sacrifice is unthinkable and never practiced in Israel. The term la-molech (lmlk) in Lev 18:21; 20:1–5 (and other passages) is not necessarily to be understood as a monstrous deity or a certain sacrificial rite. The phrase “you shall not give any of your offspring to have him go over to the Molech” (author’s translation) may be read as a cipher or code. The consonants l-m-l-k refer to pre-exilic stamp seals in Judaea containing the words: “for the king;” the Septuagint translation (ἄρχοντι) of Lev 18:21 points in the same direction. The reality behind the phrase is the priestly prohibition for the Jewish community to hand over their children to serve in the Persian army or in the households of the Persian authorities. The children given as servants to foreigners are lost for the Jewish cult community. However, the priests cannot directly express their opposition to this kind of collaboration with the Persian authorities without raising suspicion; hence, they use the well-known sequence of consonants lmlk. This interpretation fits both the context of Leviticus 18 and 20, which features family laws, and the socio-historical reality of Jewish life under Persian domination (Hieke, 2011, 147–167).
The Bible basically distinguishes two kinds of foreigners: (1) The gēr is the resident alien who migrates to Israel seeking refuge, work, and an economic future. Having no land of his own, the gēr needs support from the Israelites; they shall not oppress him and shall love him as themselves (Lev 19:33–34), because the Israelites were gērîm in Egypt and hence know the fate of the gēr. (2) The nokrī is the wealthy foreigner coming to Israel either to do business or as a member of the occupying power. These foreigners do not intend to stay longer, and they do not need any support. They are not integrated into the cultic community of Israel. The gēr, on the other hand, has to a certain extent the same rights as the native Israelite (Lev 24:22; Num 35:15); he has the option to integrate into the cultic community of the Israelites. If he chooses to do so, he has the same rights and obligations as the Israelite, e.g., if the gēr wants to partake in the Passover, he can do so if he is circumcised (Exod 12:48–49; Num 9:14). As a rule, the gēr must follow the prohibitions in order to avoid everything in cultic matters that is forbidden for Israelites (e.g., working on the Day of Atonement, Lev 16:29); however, he does not need to adopt Israelite religion and does not have to follow the positive commandments. If the gēr wants to slaughter an animal from the flock in order to get meat, he does not have to offer it as a well-being offering at the sanctuary like the Israelites (Lev 17); but nonetheless, he is not allowed to offer it to a foreign deity; he has to slaughter the animal in a profane way.
During the Late Bronze Age at least one priest performed cultic duties in every city state in the Levant. Texts from Ugarit, a large metropolis, document a professional organization of priests (dr khnm) presided over by a high priest. Around 1200 bce most city states and their sanctuaries declined, and rather small regional cultic shrines took their place. The few temples and open shrines (Hebrew, bāmôt) were supervised by priests who earned their living by farming and to some extent by donations of the participants in the cult. If a priest officiated at only one place, he was the sole priest there and inherited his office from his father. According to the biblical presentation of the history of Israel, David established Zadok as head of the priestly dynasty in Jerusalem in the 10th century. At the beginning of the era of the divided kingdoms, Jeroboam I not only established separate cult sanctuaries in Dan and Bethel, but he also officiated as priest (1 Kgs 12:33; see above). During these centuries, several shrines for Yahweh and other deities probably existed all over the land. Through pilgrimage, the cult in Jerusalem became more and more important, so more than one priest officiated there. The reforms of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:3–4) and Josiah (2 Kings 22–23) closed all sanctuaries outside of Jerusalem; only the temple there remained as the legitimate place of worship. The priests there were called levitical priests (Deut 17:9, 18; 18:1), while the priests of the other (now closed) temples of Yahweh were called Levites (Deut 10:8.9; 18:8). They were allowed to officiate at the temple of Jerusalem; however, this could not provide their living, and thus they needed support from the Israelites. The descendants of Zadok assured for themselves the prerogatives of the service at the altar, including the privileges, prebend, and political influence (for details see Zwickel, 2010, 451–465, and Zwickel, 1994).
With the second deportation under the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in 587 bce and the destruction of the temple, this kind of priesthood ended. Belonging to the upper class and to the intellectuals, the priestly families were exiled during the conquest of the Babylonians. Ezekiel was a member of such a priestly family and was expatriated to Babylon in the first deportation (597 bce). By the age when he was destined to officiate as a priest at the temple in Jerusalem, he was called to be a prophet in exile (Ezekiel 1).
The Persian administration reactivated the exiled priestly families when the sanctuary in Jerusalem was rebuilt at the end of the 6th century bce “To the best of our knowledge, however, worship at the temple site in Jerusalem was controlled from ca. 535 to 172 bce by a single family, the descendants of Jeshua ben Jehozadak, the first post-exilic high priest (his family is often called the Oniads)” (Watts, 2013, 107). Since there was only one temple in Judah/Yehud (Jerusalem), the remaining members of the tribe of Levi who settled mainly in the countryside, became “a sort of second-class clergy,” the Levites (Grabbe, 2003, 213; Gunneweg, 1965, 139). During the reforms of Nehemiah and Ezra the situation of the Levites improved, as they took over administrative and educational tasks as judges and teachers and thus assured their material income. Especially the Book of Chronicles bears witness to the important role of the Levites in the administration (for details see Labahn, 2010; 2012). In the late Persian Period, “Priests” and “Levites” were established as distinct socio-religious groups with particular tasks and roles. While the priests defended their cultic prerogatives, the Levites found their key position in the explanation of scripture, which became more and more their domain (Schaper, 2000, 306; Stern, 2007). This tradition of exegesis of scripture led to a momentous transformation of the Israelite-Jewish religion that assured its survival after the destruction of the temple in 70 ce and the end of all sacrificial and priestly actions. The struggle between “Priests” and “Levites” transformed into the religious-political fractions of the late Second Temple (Sadducees vs. Pharisees). The destruction of the temple was survived by the more flexible group: the Levitical-Pharisaic group that was more oriented towards scripture and far less to cult and temple. This group later on transformed into the Rabbinical Judaism.
In the later post-exilic era, the religious and political function of the office of the High Priest (ha-kohēn ha-gādōl (e.g., Hag 1:1; Zech 3:8; 2 Chr 34:9) increased. An inner-priestly hierarchy is already indicated in the laws of Leviticus (Lev 4:3.5.16; 21:10). Within the literary fiction of Leviticus, the first “anointed priest” is Aaron himself, whose head is anointed according to Lev 8:12, while his sons are the other priests, who are only sprinkled with oil and blood (Lev 8:30). This kind of hierarchy was manifest in the post-exilic era. Because there was no longer an anointed king, the anointed High Priest replaced the king and took over political leadership. In the Hellenistic period, civil wars and the Maccabean Revolt (2nd century bce) caused disruptions, and the “Oniads” as a priestly family “were replaced by another family, the Hasmoneans, who controlled the high priesthood from at least 152 to 37 bce” (Watts, 2013, 107). At the end of the 2nd century, the Hasmonean high priest and political leader also took the title “king” (Aristobulus I/Alexander Jannaeus). Both families, the Oniads and the Hasmoneans, claimed descent from Israel’s first high priest, Aaron. The Aaronide priesthood and “the priests’ dynastic claims to govern the temple were among the most important factors in the elevation of Torah to scriptural status and in shaping its contents” (Watts, 2013, 111). For example, Leviticus assigns two fundamental tasks to the “anointed priest” (i.e., the Aaronide High Priest): to offer the sin-offering of the entire community (Lev 4:13–21) and to make atonement according to Leviticus 16 once a year. Especially the Day of Atonement makes the High Priest an indispensable figure and a key position at the culmination of the entire “liturgical year.”
Although kings and prophets had certain cultic tasks, the main ritual expert in the ancient Near East, Egypt, and the Bible was the priest. Before officiating, the priest had to gain ritual purity by washing in water and putting on particular garments. He got his office in a hereditary chain from his father and was introduced into his tasks by an ordination. In the ancient Near East and in ancient Egypt, women, too, performed cultic acts as priestesses. Male priests usually were shaved. The cultic personnel had different functions and names. Within the biblical presentation, however, no women ever acted as priests, and the male priests were not allowed to cut their beard and shave their hair. The Biblical priests had the prerogative to serve at the altar, offer the Israelite’s offerings, and handle the blood for ritual purposes. A second task was to distinguish between “clean/pure” and “unclean/impure,” as well as what was or was not suitable for sacrifice. The priests also had to teach the Israelites (non-priests) accordingly. Later on, the Levites who first functioned as a clerus minor took over responsibilities for teaching, explaining Scripture, and administration.
The Israelites as non-priestly cult participants were allowed to (not obliged to) bring offerings (men and women as well); the hand-leaning ritual (see Lev 1:4) made the offering a personal encounter between the Israelite and the deity, mediated by the priest and the altar. There was no cult prostitution; sexuality was entirely banned from the sanctuary. Children were not allowed to bring offerings; however, they took part in the meal of the well-being offering. There was no child sacrifice. Foreigners as resident aliens (gērîm) had the option to integrate into Israel’s cultic community (mainly by circumcision). They did not have to obey the positive commandments, but they were subject to the cultic prohibitions for the Israelites (e.g., no work on the Day of Atonement). The priestly literature admonishes the Israelite to love the resident alien as himself and to have one law for the alien and the citizen.