and commanded them nought, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices.  But this thing commanded I them:  hearken to my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people, and walk ye in the way that I shall always teach you, that it may be well with you.”  The view indeed, that the prophets (who, from the connection, are the ever-living voice to which Israel is to hearken) are the proper soul of the theocracy, the organ by which Jehovah influences and rules it, has no claim to immemorial antiquity.  But no stress lies upon the positive element here; enough that at all events Jeremiah is unacquainted with the Mosaic legislation as it is contained in the Priestly Code.  His ignoring of it is not intentional, for he is far from hating the cultus (xvii.26).  But, as priest and prophet, staying continually in the temple at Jerusalem, he must have known it, if it had existed and actually been codified.  The fact is one which it is difficult to get over.

Thus the historical witnesses, particularly the prophets, decide the matter in favour of the Jehovistic tradition.  According to the universal opinion of the pre-exilic period, the cultus is indeed of very old and (to the people) very sacred usage, but not a Mosaic institution; the ritual is not the main thing in it, and is in no sense the subject with which the Torah deals. 1

********************************* 1.  That the priests were not mere teachers of law and morals, but also gave ritual instruction (e.g, regarding cleanness and uncleanness), is of course not denied by this.  All that is asserted is that in pre-exilian antiquity the priests’ own praxis (at the altar) never constituted the contents of the Torah, but that their Torah always consisted of instructions to the laity.  The distinction is easily intelligible to those who choose to understand it. ********************************

In other words, no trace can be found of acquaintance with the Priestly Code, but, on the other hand, very clear indications of ignorance of its contents.

II.I.3.  In this matter the transition from the pre-exilic to the post-exilic period is effected, not by Deuteronomy, but by Ezekiel the priest in prophet’s mantle, who was one of the first to be carried into exile.  He stands in striking contrast with his elder contemporary Jeremiah.  In the picture of Israel’s future which he drew in B.C. 573 (chaps. xl.-xlviii.), in which fantastic hopes are indeed built upon Jehovah, but no impossible demand made of man, the temple and cultus hold a central place.  Whence this sudden change?  Perhaps because now the Priestly Code has suddenly awakened to life after its long trance, and become the inspiration of Ezekiel?  The explanation is certainly not to be sought in any such occurrence, but simply in the historical circumstances.  So long as the sacrificial worship remained in actual use, it was zealously carried on,