It contains many internal contradictions which hamper its ability to derogate convincingly from the integrity of the received text.
One of the principal reasons for the documentary hypothesis is that XIXth century Germans believed that it was inconsistent to mix dry genealogies, formulaic censuses and colorful narratives into one continuous account. In XIXth century Germany this was considered a patchwork.
However, as we learn more about the literary production of the ancient Near East we learn that these "inconsistencies" were not inconsistent in their true cultural context.
Egyptian accounts of history will go from narrative to genealogy to legal decrees and back again in one text.
Basically what the documentary hypothesis comes down to is this: that a member of the fin de siecle Prussian upper classes would never have written the book of Genesis the same way an Egyptian-educated nomadic Hebrew of 1200 BC would have.
In this we agree.
Would the Prussian's favorite method of exposition be superior to the nomadic Hebrew's? That's moot.
Agreed. As I stated in my original post, I believe all of the Bible is divinely inspired and no one writer is more important than the other.