OK, as requested, here is my first cut at providing a summarized list of takeaways. I did this off the top of my head, so it's quite possible that I've missed something. I've also combined elements from the Intro and the Abraham post. Originally Jewishness, was only a typical tribal ethnicity of the much, much wider Semitic identity, here a relatively poor tribe of the southern Canaanites, the Judeans. Perhaps having a mythic or real patriarch named Judah, and the people of whom were typically polytheistic in line with their fellow Canaanite neighbors, the Israelites, Ugarites, etc.. Being a Canaanite becomes bad, by suggesting a fictionally drunk and naked Noah and Ham do something perverse. But don't worry, we're all 'Judeans' (and always have been - wink, wink) who came from, umm 'Ur', God knows where originally, except we're very suspicious that ... Sabians were involved. Thus the entire use of the Jewish (and Semitic) identity is an identity scam of the highest order, perpetrated by wily and elite others as a cover. Various religio-psychological ploys are used to make the low level participants (either former real Judeans or converts) into being righteous victims for the 'divine' cause. The related secular and priestly elites were already expressing moves away from polytheism (e.g. Aton, Ahura Mazda, Marduk) before the recruitment of the obscure Yahweh. The OT narratives frequently use the typology of the younger son (e.g. Judah, Joseph) ascending, contra primogeniture, to familial or tribal leadership, in order to symbolize the otherwise curious circumstances of primitive Judea rising to pre-emanance amongst vastly greater neighboring powers, ultimately to rule the world and all of other humanity (via the proverbial Winds of Moriah). However, even this identity (of Judea) is later increasingly conflated with that of Israel, the latter's entire population is relocated by the Assyrians as a form of convenient 'ethnic cleansing'. Even the name Israel (equated with Isaac - yitzaq) means (cynical IMHO) laughter - also related to the 'knowing' laughter of Abraham and Sarah at her implausibly giving birth to an actual human being at her age. Because the laughter really refers to the synthetic creation of a nation, one ultimately meant for global hegemony - as the canons constantly reiterate. The birth/creation requires the intervention of the Lord (aka important human leaders, most likely Egyptian and in league with such as the Hittites. Between the times of the military campaign of pharaoh Necho II (ostensibly against Urfa/Edessa) and the immediate period after the so-called Babylonian Exile, the various pre-existing local historical narratives and earlier regional mythos were redacted into the synthetic and propagandic narrative of a people who now must come to believe that they are the descendants of fictional divinely enabled (Providence) territorial Conquest. And at the same time they inherit a new belief in an amalgamated single god, made up of the names of their previous gods (most names converted to the respective attributes of the new god). With the campaign of Necho II, the Judean canon states that Yahweh was 'with' Necho and the loyal (to Yahweh) Josiah curiously gets killed. No good deed goes unpunished apparently, as Josiah's high priest had 'discovered' the missing holy texts that would cleanse the unpure practices from the Temple and Judea and Israel. The opposite of "my dogod ate the homework". But, how did these unpure practices, such as the goddess wife of Yahweh, Asherah, reside in the Temple in the first place? Because it was originally her and her husband's house, that's why That many people objected to the new paradigm was then recorded as their being constantly tempted towards the neighboring Canaanite culture's practices and gods via intermarriages and such. Ironically, the term 'backsliding' is closer to the truth, because these 'conservative' people were wanting to hang onto their original cultural beliefs and practices. The creation of the Jewish identity and synthetic puppet state forms an ongoing dialectic foil juxtaposed with so-called Gentile society. However, the textual forms share a common source with both the Ugarites and the Homeric Greeks. Some beneficial moral aspects are mixed in with rather arbitrarily and otherwise unnecessary high standards and practices (the latter of which Christianity comes to make definitional hay with). The Romans, whose elite Sabine tribe arrives onto the Italian peninsula, dubiously as claimed refugees from the Homeric battle of Troy, after making a romantic pit stop in Phoenicia (i.e. part of greater Canaan). They seem to have rather 'Judaic' cultural sensibilities, all the while paying cultural homage to the Greeks whom they will come to enslave, however. They insinuate themselves into political control using the legendary "Rape of the Sabine Women" ploy. Sabians, Sabines, ... coincidence?