The attempt to connect myth to social structure has mostly been a failure. It has been a long sought after dream for generations of humanists and social scientists since at least the 19th century onward, but it has mostly just not worked.
There is this great article called "Explaining the Political Ambivalence of Religion" (pdf). It's focused on political science, but I think it's lessons apply broadly: religion and religious stories neither is defined by the area it comes from, nor does religious tradition define the culture of that area. Instead, how people use those stories and traditions are used is what's important. After all, we all know the same stories and traditions have been used to justify both the violent conquests of Crusades and the austere, collectivist pacifist Amish and Hutterite communities. The Catholic Church helped prop up right-wing dictatorships in Europe and South America, fight against those same South American dictatorships through liberation theology, and bring down the Communist dictatorships in Poland and Slovakia all in the 70's and 80's. That's what Philpott means by the political ambiguity of religion: each religious tradition can do many things, its specific political theology that matters most. The anthropologist Clifford Geertz's famous Islam Observed also speaks to this: the Islam he experienced in Morocco and Indonesia were very, very different as they had been shaped by local conditions (and also shape local conditions).
Now, there have been a few attempts to do trace the development of myths to particular social or material conditions. They are often quite specific. This myth came from this source, it changed because of this influence, it was borrowed from this people, it was inspired by these event. Generally, these analyses don't carry very far beyond the specific myth being discussed.
There are few general typologies that are even somewhat successful. I remember encountering one as an undergraduate (which unfortunately I have never been able to find again) which connected creation myths with primary crops. In areas where cereals dominated, people tend to grow out of the ground or be created from dust (cf. Genesis 2:7). In areas where tubers (potatoes, sweet potatoes, yams, cassava) were the primary crops, however, creation myths tend to involve chopping up a ceremonial figure and scattering their parts. [For those who don't know, tuber crops are propagated not by seeds but by chopping them up and letting them grow anew in the ground--every eye on your potato could become a new potato plant if chopped and cared for properly.] I wouldn't be surprised if this could be to some degree extended to other forms of agriculture. The original Indo-European creation myth was likely something like one twin slaughtering another (see Bruce Lincoln's work on this--I think it is is still accepted), obviously related to their most important food source of flocks and herds of various animals.
But, while I am currently convinced of this, I'm struggling to think of other patterns of religion that are really worth discussing. Creation stories are often the most important mythical stories in a culture (there may be multiple creation stories, like the creation of humans and the creation of our group or kingdom--think Genesis vs. Exodus--but they're often all particularly important). Likewise, the primary food source literally defines the line between life and death. Nothing really compares to those two in importance.
Not even death, in some ways. Your answer is about eschatology (the end of the world), but it's also ultimately about death. Until very recently belief in a world beyond this one, belief in some sort of abode for the dead, seem to have been human universals (even today, true atheists, as opposed to agnostics and people who "believe in something" but not necessarily "organized religion", make up a surprisingly small proportion of the population in the post-Industrial West). These are not necessarily permanent, not necessarily associated with reward or punishment. Hades, the Greek idea of an underworld, may be a familiar example of an afterlife that was neither reward nor punishment, nor necessarily permanent (I believe in some versions it seem like the "shades" who inhabit the underworld slowly fade away, but in other versions it seems like Hades is more or less outside of time).
I want to emphasize that most religious life is inherently cyclical. It often is tied to the seasons, or the moon, or some other natural cycle. Mircea Eliade, probably the most important religious theorist of the 20th century whose importance fell into sharp decline after the 70's and 80's, wrote a volume called The Myth of the Eternal Return partially about that. For Eliade, religious rituals were all about how religious (sacred) life was set apart from secular (profane) life. A big part of his shtick is that "as above, so below", that is, things in the sacred world have their equivalent in our profane world, we are as a reflection, darkly. One of the most important things, for Eliade, is that religious myths reenact a cyclical, sacred time. The new year festival (or harvest festival or something) is often some sort of recreation of the earth. Our actions during this recreation reenact, repair, and recreate the original sacred creation of the world, Eliade argues.
Eliade, whose entanglement with Fascism (particularly in its Romanian variant) has been much argued over, argued that Jews broke this cycle. The introduced what he called "the terror of history". They broke from "cyclical time" and created a concept of "linear time". That's mostly wrong, I'd argue.
Jewish life continues to be very cyclical. There's the annual festivals and holidays, some intimately tied with the seasons (Passover: Spring, rebirth; Sukkot: Fall, harvest). There's the repetition of the whole Torah every year (and, on the day that the year cycle is finished, it is immediately restarted). There's the recreation of sacred figures, for example the connection between a child's circumcision and Abraham's.
Second, there is much more linearity to other cultures' time than Eliade likes to recognize. There are often founding points, and there is of course death. Recognizing that "death is not the end" is a near universal, but it is (in my estimation) rarely seen as a complete, endless cycle like it is in cultures that believe in reincarnation. Having an edenic age at both beginning and end is rare, but it's not unheard of. (It's also not unheard of to have ends of history that are cyclical--some have argued that Maya and late Norse mythology both include cyclical ends where history restarts, for instance).
Now, the specific systems that you single out: In the First Temple period, most secular scholars of the Hebrew Bible argue that there is not a developed idea of heaven, hell, or a saving Messiah who ushers in an edenic Messianic Age. Obviously, our records for beliefs in this period are scattered, but ideas of death seem to be related to haShe'ol,", a place of darkness not unlike Hades. It may be possible to call on these shades (rephaim) as the Witch of Endor did for Saul in the book of Samuel. There is a likely Akkadian cognate of the term She'ol. In the Second Temple Period, that is after the Babylonian exile, we have two Biblical references to the resurrection of the dead at the end times in Daniel 12 and Isaiah 25-26.
(continued below)
This is a very difficult question to answer because it can be difficult to discern the mindset and motivations of historical figures. I will do my best to answer as someone who has studied Indo-European religion for many years, mainly the religious movements you mentioned, but also various Pagan and Shamanic traditions. I'll try not to get too off-topic while I do so. To start, perhaps it would be more accurate to phrase your question another way.
Why do the Abrahamic faiths (religions that branch off from the religious legacy of Abraham, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) tend towards a linear model of existence as opposed to the status quo of a cyclical one? The view of time you describe is far from exclusive to Dharmic faiths, it is a common feature of most non-Abrahamic cosmologies. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but before Christianization/Islamization the majority of people viewed time more as a wheel rather than a straight line.
Ragnarok is one non-Dharmic example of this belief. It was the belief of the pre-Christian Norse that the world would be torn apart and flooded, but would then be reborn anew, and so on and so forth. An example in Zoroastrianism would be Bundahishn alluded to in the Pahlavi scripts, Albeit it's important to note that it is not from the Avesta, therefore it is not official scripture. I could rattle off examples for a while, you get the point. A lot of this is coming off the top of my head, but I'll put some helpful sources down below if you'd like to read more about this.
I especially recommend the work of Rudolf Simek. He does a lot of work in what he calls, "cyclic Eddic eschatology" as well as many aspects of the proto-Germanic traditions and beliefs. He especially likes to focus on how they viewed the creation of Mankind and how that creation relates to each other as well as the broader proto-Indo European landscape, if you will. He really does a great job at what he does. Read his work in the original language if you can, because his translators don't do too well in many parts.
I digress, as I mentioned before, it's kind of weird to try and speculate on why most people viewed time as cyclical. The best theory proposed in these kinds of circles is that people observed the cycle of seasons every year, especially the cycle of planting/growing/harvesting necessary to agriculture and then they just applied that on a much larger scale. When it comes to why the Abrahamic religions are linear, as the name implies, they're descended from the worldview of Abraham, Abraham viewed time in this way, and this aspect survived in future takes.
Many people now in the regions most heavily influenced by Christianity/Islam tend to view linear time as the natural way of things, but that's just simply not true. The, "default" view, based on what we know seems to be that Time is eternal and cyclical. One can't be sure what factors led Abraham to view the progression of time as not being cyclical. It would be highly speculative to try and guess. We have limited information on ancient history to start with, and very few historians are mind readers on that kind of scale.
#Sources
Bellows, Henry Adams (2004). The Poetic Edda: The Mythological Poems. Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-43710-8.
Mallory, J. P.; Adams, Douglas Q. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 1-884964-98-2.
MacKenzie, David Neil (1990), "Bundahišn", Encyclopedia Iranica, 4, Costa Mesa: Mazda, pp. 547–551.
Simek, Rudolf (2007). Dictionary of Northern Mythology. translated by Angela Hall. D.S. Brewer. ISBN 0-85991-513-1.