I had posted my reply earlier in this thread that I do adhear to the Documentary Hypothesis Theory and here I would like to restate this position with a little clarification as to what DH is.
It seems, from reading several post that many of us think this is a recent theory. It is not. This theory was first presented in the mid 19th century.
Back then scripture scholars (almost exclusively Protestant) began studying the scriptures as works of liturature and began applying critical studies to the books of the Bible.
From their work it became evident to them that the works of the first 5 books of the OT could not have been written by one person at one time. This was based on studies of the oldest manuscripts available aided by extrabiblical works such as the Oral Traditions - the Talmud, and non scritpural liturary works that were contemporary to the written OT and older non biblical liturature.
There studies revealed definate distinctions in vocabulary, importance of different geographical locations, literary style and Theological emphasis. An important distinction amound the various strains was the various names use for God.
Eventually, the theory was developed by scholars that there were 4 general traditions that were eventually brought together to form the whole of the Torah. These traditions were given the titles by scholars of J
, E, P, D.
The J or Y tradition had it’s given theology and use of Yahewh when using the name of God. The E tradition was given the E title because of its use of Elohim in stesd of Yahweh and again shows a distinctive theology.
The P or Priestly tradition shows a theology that is distinctly based on the Priestly cult (example being the 1st Chapter of Genesis, we find an orderly progression in God’s greative activity. Time schedules were extremely important for the Priestly cast due to the ridgid schedule of the Daily Temple Sacrifice, the feast days of the calendar etc. So in Gen.1 we find God creating according to a regulated schedule with the emphasis of the Sabbath Observance on the Seventh Day). a census of the people was very important for the priestly cast in regards to the Temple Worship (also a clear sign of the P tradition as a matter of fact the Temple Worship is at the center of thai traditiom) and we find the the Book of Numbers reflecting the various elements hold to be the P tradition.
In the D tradition or Deutronomic (for give my spelling I don’t have my bible with me) there is clearly a emphasis on the cycle by which Israel(or mankind) lives in favor with God, begins to and ultimately rejects God and God’s ways, is punished by God but never destroyed entirely by God and eventually regains favor with God usually establishing a new covenant (Adam, Abraham, Noah and Sinai).
One problem with trying to understand how these scholars could come to these conclusions is that the evidence is often lost in the translations. However, even in English it is possible to pick up strains here and there, such as the two creation stories of Genesis indicated by the orderly process of creation culminating in the Seventh Day - a day of Rest for God, and the name used for God, in Gen 2 and the different theological emphasis found in the second creation account. The story of the fall in the original Hebrew uses language and the cycle of Favor - Abandonment of God’s ways - punishment and final reconciliation that is clearly the D tradition.
So given this brief sketch, I hope I explained why I begin to accept the JEPD or Documentry Hypothesis Theory. One more thing, after Divino Afflante, Catholic scholars mostly accepted and reenforce the evidence of this theory - it wasn’t rejected by them.
