I'm open-minded about it. I can see the entire account being revealed to him by God at Sinai, but even if that were the case, I can't imagine Moses thinking to himself, "I had no idea!" In other words, some portion of the story - whether minor or near all - likely was transmitted originally from Adam and Eve (to whom God could have revealed it much as He would have with Moses) down through the messianic line, including Seth and Noah. Neither, therefore, do I think Moses' story would have been a shocking revelation to his fellow Israelites. All of this, however, is just speculation on my part; what's important to me is that Moses said on behalf of God "This is the way it was."
I don't feel that same need. Gen 1-11 does represent a more distant past to the writer, and thus understandably provides less detail and is obscured by more cultural differences - but this I see as gradations of detail, not an occasion to bifurcate Genesis into two different kinds of history. After all, the story of Abraham was one step closer to Moses than that of Terah but one step more removed from Isaac's story, which was one step more removed than Jacob's story and so on.
I have heard this, too - but I have also heard from people who read Hebrew equally well and yet don't see two writers being required. Nor does my reading in English cause me to think there are two different writers. So, I see no more need to bifurcate Gen 1 from Gen 2 than I do Gen 1-11 from Gen 12-50.
I would call Gen 1 lyrical prose - not poetry. Line up Gen 1 against the Psalms or any other poetic portion of the OT and you will see a difference.
It does sound like you would be very comfortable with some form of the documentary hypothesis.
The most common shorthand referent for the documentary hypothesis is JEPD. I was first exposed to it in seminary many years ago. My professors, however, all stood against it; nevertheless, they taught it alongside their views so as to not shortchange our education. My dislike for it is longstanding.
What I don't understand, relative to your position, is if Gen 1-11, or significant portions thereof, were written or collated in, for example, the Babylonian exile, why would you be able to notice as abrupt a change as you describe you do when you move from reading Gen 1-11 to Gen 12-50? In other words, how is it that the non-Mosaic authors were able to leave so little trace of their own hands on Gen 1-11?
I am surprised that you would say this. I have not said that Gen 1-2 was interpreted uniformly up until 200 years ago - only that there has been a relatively rapid and unprecedented proliferation of varying interpretations of Gen 1-2 in the last 200 years. I don't see how anyone can deny this.
This sounds to me like (though I'm not saying it's the same thing as) saying the history of Jesus' resurrection from the dead is not necessary to its truth.
I don't understand why this is hard to understand. If the Bible is saying that creation cannot be dated older than thousands of years, then anything described as taking place millions or billions of years ago is disallowed. I'm only disallowing the SGH that conflicts with the Bible - just like I'd only question a coroner's report if it contradicted reliable human testimony.
I would have added it to mine if you had added it to the sentence of yours that I was mirroring.
Maybe, Bill, you and I have gone as far as we can with Genesis. Can you spend some time on the two Exodus passages that are so critical to me? As I've been saying, it's not reading Gen 1-2 in isolation that leads me to Mosaic Creationism (MC), it's the institution of the Sabbath in Ex 20:8-11 and its reinforcement in Ex 31:12-17, combined with they way those two passages view Gen 1-2.