Personally I believe the stories originate in the minds of the Babylonian Hebrew scribes.
The Elohist authors were writing of Jacob just after 800 BC. The Yahwist authors wrote of Abraham just after 720 BC.
Also, the description of the region in the stories of Jacob matches the landscape of Late Iron Age I (1050 BC to 950 BC), which indicates that the stories about Jacob were composed during this period.
Given Biblical Chronology Abraham is suggested to be circa 2100BCE - Moses circa 1400-1300 BCE.
We can't rely on Biblical chronology though because we don't have the original stories. The Yahwist authors rewrote the stories to make Abraham into Jacob's grandfather. Then the Priestly authors rewrote them again to make Abraham a citizen of a prestigious Babylonian city.
Given that Egyptian records only start recording the existence of the Hebrew Deity around 1400 BC, none of these stories would have happened before this date.
I don't believe that handed stories are a realistic answer at that distance in time.
Archaeology places King Saul's reign in Late Iron Age I (1050 BC to 950 BC).
We don't have a date for the composition of the escape from Egypt, but it was composed before any of the other stories.
The stories of Jacob, King Saul, and the escape from Egypt had to have been passed down verbally until 800 BC when the Ehohist authors started writing them down.
What was known were historic events and places around which these stories were woven.
When ancient authors tried to do such things, they invariably left out of their stories places and powers that existed in the time the story was set, but no longer existed at the time the story was composed.
And at the same time they included places and powers that didn't exist when the story was set, but did exist in the time the story was composed.
Because of that it is possible to separate the cases of late authorship from the genuinely ancient stories.
The character of the historic King figures in the Bible is down to religious bias. The dynasty of Omri is put to the background because he was an 'Idolator', sinning against 'god'. Emphasis is given to the faithful.
I'm sure the Omrides were not to the tastes of the religious hardliners, but the main reason they were put into the background was because the northern Israelite kingdom no longer existed and the Yahwist authors needed to concoct a fake history that would legitimize Judah as the rightful government over the former northerners.
Omri and Ahab were certainly prominent figures. Jehoash and Jeroboam not so. Jehoash had to give way to Hazael - king of Aram - and offer temple treasures. Hazael still killed all the 'princes of Judah'.
Jeroboam's conquest's were simply with the authority of Assyria. They would not have allowed it otherwise.
It was the kings before Jehoash who were menaced by Hazael.
Jehoash was the one who became vassal to Assyria and then reconquered what Hazael had taken from the previous kings.
I realize that it is better to be free and independent instead of being a vassal, but that does not mean that being a vassal is all bad. The fact that they were a vassal to Assyria still means that they got their former territory back.
And as vassal to Assyria they were able to participate in the Assyrian economic system. Under Jeroboam II, the northern Israelite kingdom prospered greatly from being the Assyrian Empire's primary source of olive oil.
Manasseh certainly improved things in Judah in many ways. But could that be because he was in Assyria's good books.
According to Assyrian records he helped Assyria against Egypt, provided an Assyrian builder with materials a seemed to be favoured. Judah also had and olive oil industry. All-in-all he had things made - provided he did not rebel.
Yes. Manasseh was Judah's version of Jeroboam II.