mer ▁blow s , ▁... ▁rejected ▁the ▁main ▁claims ▁of ▁the ▁Document ary ▁theory , ▁and ▁the ▁criteria ▁on ▁... ▁which ▁those ▁claims ▁are ▁ground ed ." ▁It ▁has ▁been ▁critic ized ▁for ▁its ▁d ating ▁of ▁the ▁sources , ▁for ▁assuming ▁that ▁the ▁original ▁sources ▁were ▁coh er ent , ▁and ▁for ▁assuming ▁E ▁and ▁P ▁were ▁originally ▁complete ▁documents . ▁Studies ▁of ▁the ▁literary ▁structure ▁of ▁the ▁Pent ate uch ▁have ▁shown ▁J ▁and ▁P ▁used ▁the ▁same ▁structure , ▁and ▁that ▁mot ifs ▁and ▁them es ▁cross ▁the ▁boundaries ▁of ▁the ▁various ▁sources , ▁which ▁und erm ines ▁arguments ▁for ▁separate ▁orig ins . ▁Problem s ▁and ▁critic isms ▁of ▁the ▁Document ary ▁hypothesis ▁have ▁been ▁brought ▁on ▁by ▁such ▁literary ▁analysis , ▁but ▁also ▁by ▁anth rop ological ▁develop ments , ▁and ▁by ▁various ▁arch ae ological ▁find ings , ▁such ▁as ▁those ▁indicating ▁Heb rew ▁is ▁older ▁than ▁previously ▁believed . ▁Pres ently , ▁few ▁bib lic al ▁sch ol ars ▁still ▁hold ▁to ▁Well hausen ' s ▁Document ary ▁hypothesis ▁in ▁its ▁classical ▁form . ▁However , ▁while ▁current ▁debate ▁has ▁modified ▁Well hausen ' s ▁conclus ions , ▁Nich ol son ▁says ▁" for ▁all ▁that ▁it ▁needs ▁revision ▁and ▁development ▁in ▁detail , ▁[ the ▁work ▁of ▁Well hausen ] ▁remains ▁the ▁se cur est ▁basis ▁for ▁understanding ▁the ▁Pent ate uch ." ▁ ▁Crit ical ▁scholar ▁Paul ine ▁Viv iano ▁agre es , ▁stating ▁that ▁the ▁general ▁cont ours ▁of ▁Well hausen ' s