AARON, the traditional founder and head of the Jewish priesthood, who, in company with Moses, led the Israelites out of Egypt (see EXODUS, THE; MOSES). His association with Moses in this matter goes back to an ancient tradition, current in north ern Israel, though the records derived from the south do not seem to mention him till after the Exile.
In the earlier narratives of the Pentateuch Aaron is mentioned in connection with four events only, (a) the Exodus itself, where he appears as the companion of Moses, (b) as supporting Moses at the battle of Rephidim, (c) as the maker of the golden calf (see CALF, GOLDEN) and (d) as rebelling, along with his sister Miriam, against the authority of Moses, on the ground that the latter had married a foreign wife (Num. xii.). It may be con jectured that his name did not occur in the original story from which the narrative of Ex. xxxii. was ultimately derived, but as it stands the passage suggests—as does also (d)—that there was a tradition of hostility between Moses and Aaron, rather than one of association.
Throughout the period of the monarchy (at least since the death of David) and even in Ezekiel, the legitimate priests at Jerusalem belong to the house of Zadok. It is only after the Exile that Aaron takes his place. In the whole of the sacerdotal literature, commonly ascribed to P, Aaron stands by the side of Moses. The latter is the representative of the secular power of Yahweh, Aaron is his religious vicegerent. Thus he takes a share in producing the plagues in Egypt, stands by his brother's side (in the pre-exilic narratives he is called the brother of Miriam, but not of Moses) by the Red sea, wields the sacred rod, is chosen and miraculously vindicated as high priest, and is made the centre of the whole ritual system.
The process by which tradition changed Aaron from being a possible rival to Moses into his ecclesiastical counterpart, has never been satisfactorily explained. R. H. Kennett has advanced the theory that the Aaronides were originally the priests of Bethel, and that their post-exilic position in Jerusalem was due to a compromise made during or shortly after the Exile. This theory certainly offers an explanation of several difficulties, but there are others which it fails to meet, and hence it has not met with general acceptance. (T. H. R.)