Early Alternative Theories

The two most notable alternative theories proposed early on are called the Fragmentary and Supplementary Hypotheses. The former was advocated by Alexander Geddes and J. S. Vater (along with W. M. L. de Wette) at the turn of the nineteenth century. Its chief characteristic, in distinction from the earlier source theory, was that the Pentateuch evidenced that it was made up of smaller fragments "independent of one another and without any continuity, but simply placed together at the hand of a redactor." Although this theory was built upon its analysis of legal material within the Pentateuch, the names in Genesis, as in all stages, including arguments given today, gave rise to the basic understanding that differing sources are used. To the fragmentary hypothesis, however, these became the two groups that collected the fragments. The fragments themselves did not constitute a complete and consistent history by J or P (understood at this time as E).
The supplementary hypothesis that followed, and only replaced for a short time, the fragmentary hypothesis was advocated by Ewald, ironically, who would also be the one to reject the position. In this theory, Ewald proposed that the E source was the foundational story of the Pentateuch. The compiler supplemented material into his account from other sources (e.g. the Book of the Covenant). Later, J (a coherent source supplemented by other sources as well) was added to E in a submissive role to the latter's primacy.
Ewald then argued that the Pentateuch was made up of two continuous and coherent strands (E1 and E2) that were unified and later supplemented by J as an equally coherent strand. As Eissfeldt notes, "We thus have a kind of combination of the older documentary hypothesis and the supplementary hypothesis presented as a solution of the Pentateuchal problem by Ewald, Knobel, Schrader, and others.
These two theories laid the groundwork for the New Documentary Hypothesis.

The Rise of Modern Source Theories

The first among many moderns who would attempt to identify the specific sources of the Pentateuch was a pastor by the name of H. B. Witter. In 1711, his Jura Israelitarum in Palaestinam argued that a different divine name was used in Genesis 1:1–2:4 and 2:5–3:24, even though each chapter was parallel in terms of content with one another—an observation that every source critic has made since. Another work by the French physician, Jean Astruc, appeared in 1753 with the title, Conjectures sur les mémoires dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi, pour composer le livre de la Genèse, where a similar argument was made. Astruc conjectured that, since two divine names were present, this meant two different sources were used by Moses to write Genesis; but since the divine names do not neatly divide into individual passages within the book, and since variations of the divine name (i.e., hwhy as opposed to Myhl) hwhy, l) as opposed to Myhl), etc.) expand beyond just the two names Elohim and YHWH, Astruc came to the conclusion that multiple sources (approximately ten) must have been used.

Astruc’s work was established by Johann Gottfried Eichorn’s Einleitung in das Alte Testament, which appeared in 1790. A further work by Karl-David Ilgen in 1798 postulated that there were seventeen distinct sources used by three different authors,[1] although the main sources consisted of two different Elohist sources and a single Yahwistic source.

This early period of the DH is often referred to by scholars as the “older documentary hypothesis,”[2] the “early source hypothesis,”[3] or simply the “documentary hypothesis.”[4] This approach believed that the sources were originally independent narratives that were complete in and of themselves, but were combined to paint a fuller picture of the events described.

Unfortunately, once the Pentateuch began to be divided with a scalpel, there was no sense in attempting to argue for such unified sources when such disparity, at least in terms of style, existed within the so-called narratives themselves. This gave rise to what is known as the Fragmentary Hypothesis.

---

[1]

[2] Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, 160–62.

[3] Anthony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg/Fortress Press, 1993), 3.

[4] Ibid., fn. 5.