History isn't a science. It can't be proved. Therefore, it's difficult to accurately place ancient texts in a coherent timeline. This is both because of the precise nature of the Jewish traditions (which in turn yields precise dates), and because of the equally vague histories of all other cultures preceding the Greeks (and even largely including the early Greeks). Naturally, historians didn't choose the precise, rational tradition from which to date the rest. They chose the Egyptians.
Archeologist David Rohl has explored the inherent contradictions in the traditional Egyptian dating scheme in his book A Test of Time. He argues that the connection of Pharaoh Shoshenk I to the Jewish name for an Egyptian king "Shishak" is actually incorrect. Since this connection is what's used by Egyptologists to fix their histories to a particular point in time (while ignoring the obvious irony of using the Jewish tradition to disprove the Jewish tradition), there's certainly ample room for speculation regarding relative dates (as Egyptian dates are then used to date all other cultures in that general area and timeframe). I am unqualified to evaluate his claim, except for mentioning that he makes a compelling, apparently consistent argument from the perspective of broad history that explains a number of oddities within the Egyptian tradition. "Fixing" the Egyptian dates to his corrected timeline also eliminates the Greek Dark Age (a period of little archeological evidence that chronologers insist is there because the timelines require it to be there.) I have not seen how he reconciles his new timeline with carbon dating, however.
Importantly, many Egyptologists, while rejecting his argument, agree with his analysis of the weakness of the Egyptian chronology. Professor Erik Hornung, for instance: "...there remain many uncertainties in the Third Intermediate Period, as critics such as David Rohl have rightly maintained; even our basic premise of 925 [BC] for Shoshenq’s campaign to Jerusalem is not built on solid foundations" (from his article "Ancient Egyptian Chronology"). It's important to note that shifting the date of Shoshenq at minimum shifts all the chronology directly dependent on it, which is a quite substantial correction.
"An extreme low chronology has been proposed recently by a group devoted to revising the absolute chronology of the Mediterranean and Western Asia: P. James et al., Centuries of Darkness, London, 1991; similar, though slightly diverging revisions, are upheld by another group, too, and partly published in the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum. The hub for the dating of other cultures is Egypt, so much of the work of both groups focuses on Egyptian evidence. Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework presented in these volumes, but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination." Professor Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, a standard reference work.
Of course, this is as Rohl presents it. Alexander Hool presents yet another timeline correction (from a Jewish perspective) in his The Challenge of Jewish history, attempting to show by the 150 or so years difference between the Greeks and Jewish tradition is resolved by critically examining the details of the Greek dates themselves, and weighing the credibility of various Greek sources.
I am not presenting this as conclusive evidence, but merely to show the concept of dates becomes exceedingly vague and exceedingly controversial (to the non-dogmatist historians anyway) the further back we go. Adding to this confusion is the bogus Documentary Hypothesis (one argument put simply: a single writer must use the same name of G-d, so any "name change" of G-d is proof of a different author). The only way to get to a Documentary Hypothesis is to assume the Torah was written by a collection of borderline illiterates incapable of nuance, and therefore ANY variation between stories or narrative pacing, etc, is because of a different author (ie. "one author wouldn't do that, so there must be at least two authors"). This is an obviously absurd instance of circular logic, but it's commonly used to "prove" the Jewish date for their Torah is false. (taken Rabbi Dr. David Gottlieb his Youtube lecture, Jewish Philosophy: Biblical Criticism - Parts 1&2)
Putting these uncertainties together, it becomes unclear exactly what we can reasonably say about the originality of one tradition over another, unless of course, we are comparing texts that were written so far apart that this uncertainty becomes irrelevant. And comparing these uncertainties to the abundance of detail, clarity, and the scope of the Jewish tradition, one is certainly not obligated to jettison the latter for the former. This is, of course, in addition to the above great answers to this question.
