I do not disagree with the larger trajectory you seem to be aiming for; deconstructing fundamental Christianity within modernism is a bit of a past-time, of sorts.

Yet, the way you intersperse modes of reasoning is a bit suspect. A lot of the work you cite are interpretive speculations that accord the same weight as a "theory" in science (which, I believe, the authors you cite would agree with). It seems you tend to take proposals and assertions in the field of Biblical scholarship and push them as long-hidden facts.

I sense you know what you are doing, but I can't help but feel the same frustration as when I see Jordan Peterson talk about the Bible. He will cite scholars to build credibility and then make interpretive jumps that anyone who exists within the realm of Biblical scholarship recognizes as faulty.

I also sense that Jordan Peterson knows exactly what he is doing. I get it. It sells. I started writing out review questions to ask and had to stop because (1) the list was too extensive and (2) I think I eventually realized that scholarship is not important.

My qualm, then, is that there is an entire scholarly tradition that is articulating the overarching aim I think you are going for. You don't need to reinvent the wheel; especially with the same uninformed confidence that is the very bane of the fundamentalist evangelical movement.

Honestly, it feels like you are just filling in the other side of that spectral horseshoe within modern Christianity.