First, thank you for a sincere reply
I have read him on several sources, including "The Bible Unearthed". He is an excellent archaeologist but not the archaeologist. I don't know if you can still find it, but he had an excellent debate on the pages of BAR shortly after "The Bible Unearthed" came out with Hershel Shanks whereas Finkelstein backed off on some of his claims. Like yourself, he overstated his "certainty".
I still thing Israel Finklestein is the premier archeologist whom maximalist are trying to knock off the top of the hill so to speak.
Even when we look at Dever, the only real question is what kind of different Semetic people made up these displaced Canaanites.
I will not follow Redford, to bias.
And yet if we look at every modern scholarship on this topic, we see the archeological evidence pointing to the highlands going from a handful of villages to over whelming numbers 1200BC to 1000BC
Before this time we only see the Merneptah Stele that states we have a nomadic semi nomadic people that were wiped out. And I don't think there is a scholar that doesn't claim at this point they were proto Israelites at best.
Early Israelites are a hard thing to define due to the limited information. What we do know is that by 1000 BC they were multicultural, worshipped the deities of Canaanites, and that their pottery matched Canaanites as well as house foundations.
and this as you pointed out
one thing that's interesting is that no pig bones have been found in the highland areas but they have been found along the coast, thus indicating that the kosher Laws were being followed at least around 1000 or so b.c.e..
Which as you know could very well be pointing to trait due to geographic location
alone.
Did this new culture make this law permanent early on, probably so.
Well, to me, I think that we indeed went from polytheistic to monotheistic, and the Abraham narrative essentially deals with that probable progression in myth form ("myth" does not mean falsehood but is a story with meanings found within).
Yes from a very late redaction.
Abraham himself having no historicity at all, but as you stated oral traditions before the exile that may have had some historicity were used in creating the text. I wish there was more evidence to elude that he did have historicity, but with the obvious Mesopotamian influence of his background, Archeologist have long gave up any attempt to find historicity for him.
With so much that has been found in the last 50 years and added to what is really known, I don't think there will ever be a credible argument against Israelites polytheism that will stand again.
History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.
[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#cite_note-77
and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").
[78] Its major deities were not numerous
El,
Asherah, and Yahweh, with
Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.
[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult,
[79] although she continued to be popular at a community level until Persian times.
[80] Yahweh, later the
national god of both Israel and Judah, seems to have originated in
Edom and
Midian in southern Canaan and may have been brought north to Israel by the
Kenites and
Midianites at an early stage.
[81] After the monarchy emerged at the beginning of Iron Age II, kings promoted their family god,
Yahweh, as the god of the kingdom, but beyond the royal court,
religion continued to be both polytheistic and family-centered as it was also for other societies in the ancient Near East.
[82]
Again, what I said which you didn't allude to is that I tend to agree with the gist of what you're saying, but the problem is that you're overstating the "certainty" of these hypotheses.
Actually Im not. And I know you cannot supply any credible sources that say otherwise. Because they do not exist.
so I'll beg off any further discussion with you on this matter.
Sorry didn't mean to come off that way, but these topics have been beat to death here over the last few years, and what ends up happening is Jewish bias tends to show up to overstate historicity of certain events with no real evidence to back it up.
If I mistook you for that I apologize.