It’s a few days old, but John Anderson has an excellent post up about R. N. Whybray’s publication on the flaws of DH. I think he reiterates a number of important considerations (e.g., Hegelian assumptions about the evolution of religion, lack of ancient analogs, authorial consistency is presupposed, etc.), but I cringed when I read the title of the post, because I know a lot of folks who think that “debunking” DH means establishing Mosaic authorship of the Torah.
The most important thing I think John points out is the neglect of the supplementary and fragmentary hypotheses. While I disagree with Van Seter’s chronology, I think he’s moving in the right direction. I also agree with John that speaking of sources proper is a little aggressive. I think identifying literary seams without necessarily saying so-and-so is responsible for this redaction or text is an approach on a much more sure foundation.
UPDATE: John’s already mentioned it, but see his new post on challenging DH.