step to argue from such a small particular to the use of a source which everywhere else is entirely without influence and unknown, especially as the priority of this source is by no means established on independent grounds, but is to be proved by this alleged use of it. lf there were a palpable difference between JE and Q in this point, if we could say that in Q there were twelve spies sent out, and in JE; three, the case would be different; but in Numbers xiii. the beginning of the narrative of JE has been removed and that of Q put in place of it, so that we do not know how the narrative of JE began, and what number, if any, was given in it.  In such a state of matters the only reasonable course is to supply what is lacking in JE from Deuteronomy, which generally follows the Jehovist alone, and to conclude that the spies were twelve in number in this source also.

The instance in which the proof would be strongest that Deuteronomy was acquainted with the narrative of the Priestly Code, is x. 22.  For the seventy souls which make up the whole of Israel at the immigration into Egypt, are not mentioned in JE, and there is no gap that we are aware of in the Jehovist tradition at this point.  But they are by no means in conflict with that tradition, and even should we not take Deuteronomy x. 22 for a proof that the seventy souls found a place in it also, yet it must at least be acknowledged, that that passage is by no means sufficient to break down the evidence that the priestly legislation has the legislation of Deuteronomy for its starting-point. 1

******************************************** 1.  Noldeke frequently argues from such numbers as 12 and 70, as if they only occurred in Q. But that is not the case.  As Q in the beginning of Genesis has groups of 10, JE has groups of 7; 12 and 40 occur in JE as frequently as in Q, and 70 not less frequently.  It is therefore surprising to find the story of the 12 springs of water and the 70 palm-trees of Elim ascribed to Q for no other reason than because of the 12 and the 70.  Not even the statements of the age of the patriarchs—­except so far as they serve the chronological system—­are a certain mark of Q:  compare Genesis xxxi. 18, xxxvii. 2, xli. 26, l. 26; Deuteronomy xxxiv. 7; Joshua xxiv. 29.  Only the names of the 12 spies and the 70 souls are incontestably the property of the Priestly Code, but it is by no means diflicult to show (especially in Genesis xlvi. 8-27) that they are far less original than the figures.  The numbers are round numbers, and in fact do not admit of such a recital of the items of which they are made up. ***********************************************