2nd of 3 reasons of Sailhamer

For context and links, please see previous post re: Perman's book review of Sailhamer's "Genesis Unbound."

"Third and finally, Genesis 1:1 cannot be a title for the rest of the chapter because there is a summary title at the conclusion of the thought unit begun in chapter one (Genesis 2:1). This would make a title at the beginning redundant. It is highly unlikely that there would be two titles to the same account." Note that I have not yet responded to Sailhamer's first of three reasons; coming soon.

I have no clue whether it is "highly unlikely" in Hebrew for there to be "two titles to the same account." But it seems to me that it's possible to agree with Sailhamer on this, but also to disagree with his point that the "summary title" in Gen. 2:1 makes a title in 1:1 "redundant." I am thinking that one way to defeat Sailhamer's argument is to show that 2:1 has a different meaning and function than the title in 1:1.

Gen. 2:1 (NASB) reads, "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts." Many other translations begin 2:1 with "Thus" (e.g., NKJV) or "So" (e.g., NLT). I read Gen. 2:1 as a summary conclusion to the introduction in 1:1, rather than as Sailhamer does as "a summary title at the conclusion of the thought unit begun in chapter one." But one might say that the word "Thus" or "So" is not in the Hebrew text. This objection might be true, as I don't see either word in the Masoretic Text (http://www.blueletterbible.org/), and some translations do not begin 2:1 with "Thus" or "So". (e.g., ASV, YNG, DBY, HNV). Maybe this objection has some merit. But one response to this objection is that there is another feature of 2:1 which suggests that it is a summary conclusion to an introduction rather than a "summary title."

Nearly all of the Bible translations of 2:1 available at http://www.blueletterbible.org/ contain a different verb and verb structure than 1:1. For comparison, 1:1 says "created." But 2:1 says:

"were finished" (KJV, NKJV, ESV, RSV, ASV, DBY, WEB, HNV)

"was completed" (NLT)

"were completed" (NIV, NASB)

"are completed" (YNG)

Call me biased and/or simple, but I can't help but read these translations of 2:1 in what I consider to be the ordinary English way: something was completed/finished. The emphasis of 2:1 is not that this something was created, but that it was completed/finished.

In summary, I read 1:1 as an introduction to which 2:1 is the conclusion. Thus, I would say that 1:1 and 2:1 are at least different in that respect, and are therefore not "redundant" as Sailhamer claims.

Do readers have any thoughts on the above?