Well, after looking at this in more detail – I can see where arguments could be made for both.
From a literary point of view, the stylistic differences between chapters 1 and 2 seem to suggest different authors; however, a closer analysis of the actual grammar, as a few people have pointed out, provides for a single authorship.
I get where it’s one account grammatically; but I have to admit, stylistically I’m having a hard time not seeing two complementary accounts somewhere in the very distant past.
That said, not to get off on a tangent, I still stand by post #21 – these are creation stories and are not meant to be as literal as people take them.
From a literary point of view, the stylistic differences between chapters 1 and 2 seem to suggest different authors; however, a closer analysis of the actual grammar, as a few people have pointed out, provides for a single authorship.
I get where it’s one account grammatically; but I have to admit, stylistically I’m having a hard time not seeing two complementary accounts somewhere in the very distant past.
That said, not to get off on a tangent, I still stand by post #21 – these are creation stories and are not meant to be as literal as people take them.