My interpretation is more banal. The borrowings are more superficial. We know that language and style used to describe kings, emperors, and gods are very simil

My interpretation is more banal. The borrowings are more superficial. We know that language and style used to describe kings, emperors, and gods are very similar. The "I am Sargon, King of Kings" style occurs in political and religious writings all throughout the region... with roots going deep into the bronze age. Recurring imagery, writing style, motifs, titles, etc. are the norm. Lots of cultural elements are broadly found throughout the greater region. It's not surprising that they'd exist in any two traditions. All these traditions affected eachother. Take the Sphinx motif, Seraphim in temple judaism. It's a motif found very widely, over a very long period of time. The imagery is reused. The symbolism is reused. It's impossible to draw a clear path of progression though. On monotheism... I don't think monotheism is all that significant, per se. Whatever the origins of this were, canaanite cities and kings were clearly being closely associated to single deities. One king, one god. Maybe one temple. That was a typical mode. Is that monotheism? Why care, outside of theology? What is significant about monotheism is not monotheism. It's the "jealous god," the strict prohibitions on "foreign worship." This exclusionism is what made the religion so successful in the long term. We see this even in modern times. Religions that tolerate multiple belief systems give way to monotheism.