Hiebert gives us a commentary that compares and contrasts the yahwist and priestly presence in the book of Genesis.
Maxwell - I like how you highlight Hiebert's view that the J and P sources use family in different ways. P always seems to use family to get from A to B -- the genealogies -- and rarely focuses on the "content" of these family relationships (the drama, as you aptly put it). I always find it somewhat surprising that the Priestly creation story puts man and woman on an equal level (Gen. 1:27) -- it seems out of place in a source that is always focused on the origins of the (all-male) priesthood. Based on what you and Hiebert state, perhaps the P writer of the creation story just didn't care to get into the drama of male-female relationships (like J did in Gen 2:4 ff.).
As I think about it, maybe P's "male and female he created them" of Gen 1:27 is just a merism (like "young and old") -- maybe it's not really egalitarian at all. Hmm.
Ryan, it is an interesting question about whether the simultaneous creation of male and female implies that their functions are the same. If the P source prioritizes procreation (as it seems to do in Gen 1:28), then perhaps both male and female are valued here for their procreative roles.
Maxwell, you well described how Hiebert uses source criticism to help us understand diverse perspectives in the text.
Did you identify places where his "descriptive theology" spilled over into "constructive theology"? That is, did you think that he brought these insights to bear on issues facing our own times?