Very interesting. Of course, if I was a firm believer in the DH and would not listen to any other possiblity, I could argue that that verse was written by two different authors, right? :)
Taking the posistion that the different names for God convey different aspects of his person then the change in name makes a lot of sense and conveys a stronger message. The serpent didn't use the more personal one-on-one name for God, he uses the God is "distant and impersonal" version of his name.
Now that makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, I'm not sure I believe there was an actual snake talking to God in the Garden. I believe this author was using imagery and symbolism to explain man's fall from grace. But that's just me.
It would mean that the author is very carefull in his selection of what name to use for God and that would indicate one author using literary devices.
Or it could indicate that this author of this passage was very careful in his selection of what name to use for God and perhaps the other authors were not as careful or some were more careful or some were just as careful.
See how this could just go on & on?? :) But I like the discussion, thanks!
The main selling point of the many author thing is the use of different names for God. They assume that each section was written by an author who had no contact with the other author(s). They base this on style but use the differing names of God as their centerpiece argument. The contrary theory is that its the same author who is just using differing styles.
The existance of this verse where both names are used requires the many authors theory to invoke the intervention of a third person that edited the original text to change the name of God. You then get into some very problematic issues. Who was the editor ? Why were some things edited and others not ?