On the Amalekites and Hyksos

I'm going here to disagree with things I've said before (like some of what I said on how the Saul connection works), as I've studied Velikovsky's arguments more closely.  But I'll also repeat some of what I've said before that I still stand by.  There are certain areas where I don't want to go over again what others have already said, so this is perhaps best understood by someone who's already read Ages in Chaos.  It can be bought on Amazon pretty cheap.

On the Hyksos-Amalekites connection I first want to say I feel it's not quite that simple. The Hyksos were many tribes of Asiatic peoples. They included the Amalekites and possibly other Edomite tribes, I think they had a Midianite element too (Hor II of the 13th Dynasty I think was the Midanite king Hur mentioned in The Bible). Archaeology clearly shows they had an Amorite element as well.  Ishmaelite and Aramean tribes could have contributed also to help explain some of the confusion of the Arabian historians.

I agree with Ages in Chaos about Agag being Apep.

The early Hebrew written signs as they are preserved on the STELE OF MESHA show a striking resemblance BETWEEN THE LETTERS G (GIMEL) AND P (PEI). NO OTHER LETTERS are so much alike in shape as these: each is an oblique line connected to a shorter, more oblique line, and is similar to the written number 7, THE SIZE. OF THE ANGLE BETWEEN THE TWO OBLIQUE LINES CONSTITUTES THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.

Nevertheless, it seems that not the Hebrew reading but rather the EGYPTIAN MUST BE CORRECTED....Almost EVERY hieroglyphic consonant [Egyptian] stands for MORE THAN ONE SOUND, and only empirically are all the sounds symbolized by a consonant found.

There wasn't more then one known Agag though, Balaam is giving a Prophecy of the days of Saul.  Though it's certainly not impossible more then one Amalekite King had that name including one contemporary with Balaam.   The claim of there being more then one Apepi is also spurious and exists because of how Josephus's copy of Manetho is likely confused, but it's still not impossible more then one Hyksos ruler used that name.  In both cases it is the latter one at the end of this period who certainly existed.

Velikovsky and others are wrong in citing Genesis 14 as proving the Amalekites existed already before Esau/Edom. The reference to them there is an editorial note from Moses, telling his readers where on the Map of their day he's referring to. Like how we often say "near modern _____".   The Arabs didn't have an Arabic translation of The Bible until well after the Koran, so they got Amalek's genealogy confused just as they did how the Amalekite pharaohs relate to the history of Joseph and Moses.

Since Velikovsky's time Archeologists are inclined now to consider the location of Avaris indisputable.  And thus his Al-Arish theory useless.

It could be the Hyksos used more then one city as their Capital (like the later Persian Empire, or Assyrian Empire), each of which could have been known as "ḥw.t wr.t", which means "Great House".  And Velikovsky's model certainly does not preclude that they'd have some regional capital in the Delta.

Velikovsky's theory on the location of Sharuhen is probably wrong.  This would have been the city they operated from when they attacked Ziklag.  Judges 19:6 places Sharuhen in the allotment of Simeon.  But the Edom-Seir region is indeed where Simeonites would wind up much later as we see in 1 Chronicles 4.

On the subject of Psalm 78:49 and "Evil Angels".  I do not believe there is a scribal error here, I believe God's Word is preserved.  But the idea that it's a Hebraic Pun on "Shepard Kings" is possible.

So I think I've covered everything on this subject I might disagree with Velikovsky on.  I now want to talk about Greek Mythology.

Based on dating information from Eusebius, 1484 or 1470 BC is the date of Danaus leaving Egypt to found Argos.  Revised Chronology places that during the Hyksos period, since the latest possible date for the Exodus is 1492 B.C. (Ussher's date).

Danaus (ancestor of the Spartan and Macedonian Royal houses according to mythology via Perseus and Herakles) is frequently identified with the Tribe of Dan by various theories.  While I definitely consider the name evidence of Semitic origin, the D-n element does exist in Semitic languages independent of The Tribe of Dan, in Biblical names like Dinah and Dannah and Dedan and Daniel.  But most relevant here is Dinhabah, the city of the first King of Edom in Genesis 36.  (And some sources say the Ugarit story of Aghat and Pighat gives a Donatiya as the wife of Danel.)  Later on I do believe a Danite intermarriage with this line happens via Andromeda daughter of Cephus of Joppa/Jaffa and Perseus.

Josephus's account of the correspondences between the Spartan King and the High Priest Onais about the Spartans having descent from Abraham refereed to the Spartan seal as being an Eagle clutching a Serpent.  Extra-Biblical sources like the Targums are appealed to for evidence to make the Eagle a symbol of Dan.  But Biblical evidence links the Eagle with Edom in Obadiah 4 and Jeremiah 49:16&22.

The Serpent is indeed linked to Dan, maybe the Eagle clutching a Serpent in part represents an intermingling of Edom and Dan?

The Sabine Tribe of Ancient Italy claimed descent from a Spartan colony according to Plutarch.  Perhaps this can add to the Edomite heritage of Rome.  Rome's second King was a Sabine.

The father of Danaus was Belus.  Belus could come from Bela son of Beor, an Ancient Edomite King mentioned in Genesis 36, or maybe Baalhanan.  The Amalekites were an Edomite tribe.  Genesis entered it's finale form in the days of Moses, so 36 could include Edomite Kings contemporary with The Exodus.

If one of the two Hadad/Hadars who was a King of Edom in Genesis 36 is also the ruler deified as the Semitic god Hadad, then his name would also be linked to Baal/Bel.  The last King of Edom listed here is Hadar in Genesis 36 but Hadad in Chronicles.  His city Pau/Pai is unidentified and has been speculated by some scholars to be an Egyptian city, and that his wife Mehetabel is Egyptian in origin.  Maybe Pau/Pai is Al-Arish/Avaris.

Belus was a King of Egypt, but that Danaus's brother(Aegytpus)'s name became the Greek name for Egypt is largely due to confused Greek geography.  Like I discussed elsewhere with Aethiopia(Ethiopia).

Apollodorus ( 2.1.4-5)

"Belus remained in Egypt, reigned over the country, and married Anchinoe, daughter of Nile, by whom he had twin sons, Aegyptus and Danaus, but according to Euripides, he had also Cepheus and Phineus. Danaus was settled by Belus in Libya, and Aegyptus in Arabia."

Marrying a daughter of the Nile is likely a reference to him marrying a Native Egyptian (possibly of Royal or Nobel blood) for political reasons.  Whether or not the Hyksos historically ever did that I don't think we know for certain.

Because I support the Arabian view of Mount Sinai, I'm aware that what Arabia meant to Ancient Greek Writers (Modern Jordan south of the Dead Sea and north western Saudi Arabia) is where the Israelite wondering was, this included ancient Edom.  Some scholars think classical Arabia could have included parts of southern Israel (south of Beersheba) and the north eastern Sinai Peninsula, which would include Al-Arish.

So it sounds like Belus may have put his Heir Apparent in charge of the Amalekites original homeland.  Like how the Welsh in origin Tudors monarchs of England began making the Crown-Prince the Prince of Wales.

Greek myths go on to tell us that Aegytpus conquered a people called Melampodes.  Malampodes means "black footed" and could make sense as a term for former slaves who made mud bricks with their feet.  So I think they're the wandering Israelites and that this is a reference to not the first post Exodus Amalekite encounter, but when the Amalekites were victorious over them in Numbers 14:45.


In Peoples of The Sea on pages 84&85, Velikovsky argues for Temeh or Temehu being a name the Egyptians used for the Spartans or Lacedaemonians.  Teman is in Genesis 36 the name of a grandson of Esau (brother of the grandson Jasher links to Rome, and Amalek was their half brother), and later in The Bible a region in Edom.  The same basic Hebrew word is sometimes used and translated South, and the Teman in Edom is possibly one of it's more southern locations.  So perhaps Edomites who colonized the Peloponnesian peninsula used a word similar to Teman for the southern most region of the Peloponnese, where Sparta/Lacedaemonia was?

On Shishak and Agag

Shoshenk's City List
Shoshenk I campaign into Palestine: His city list is an imitation of that of Thutmoses III but very instructive. The first 9 names are the `Nine Bows', #10 is the introduction saying simply "List of the towns". They are: 11=Gaza, 12=Makkedah, 13=Rubuti, 14=Aijalon, 15=Kiriathaim?, 16=Beth- horon, 17=Gibeon, 18=Mahanaim, 19=Shaud[y], 20=?, 21=Adoraim, 22=Hapharaim, 23=Rehob, 24=Betshan, 25= Shunem, 26=Taanach, 27=Megiddo, 28=Adar, 29=Yadhamelek, 30=[Heb]el?, 31=Honim?, 32=Aruna, 33=Borim, 34=Gathpadalla, 35=Yahma, 36=Betharuma, 37=Kekry, 38=Socoh, 39=Bethappuah... Between #17 & 18 should be Jerusalem by sequence if that is where he went according to conventional history, 1.Kings 14:25-26 & 2.Chronicles 12:2-9. In fact he went no where near there.

Kadesh comes from Qdsh, the Hebrew word for Holy, it applied to many cities in the region, to assume Egyptian records always meant the same one is naive, The Bible repeatedly refers to Jerusalem as Holy.

While the "n" is sometimes dropped from Shoshenk, it never is in inscriptions recognizing him from this region.

It is well known that the later Egyptian pharaohs had as many as five names. Now Birch has noted in this regard that "... the (Golden) Horus names of Thutmose III comprise variations on: Tcheser-khau, Djeser-khau, Cheser-khau, (Sheser-khau?);" names that come very close indeed to "Shishak" (Hebr. qwaOwi) according to Birch. Nor do these names have the problem of the presence of the letter "n" as found greatly complicating discussions on the name Shoshenq's appropriateness for "Shishak". Regarding the succession of consonants - considered much more important than the changeable vowels in ancient names - we get for Sheser-kau the pattern, Sh-S-K, corresponding almost exactly to Sh-Sh-K, and more suitable than Shoshenq (Sh-Sh-N-K). And since an R is dropped in getting Ozymandias from the Throne Name of Ramses II I see no reason to make that an objection here.

As far as whether or not that's a normal name for a foreigner to call that pharaoh by, again the Bible is often abnormal, Shishak works well as a Hebrew pun, for example it's similar to Jeramiah's code for Babylon.

Among the Treasures looted from Tuthmosis's campaign are many matching relics of Solomon's Temple including the Menorah.
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/karnak_loot_english.html
There are a lot of ideas on this site I like. But plenty that annoy me, like Hatshepsut as Sheba but especially Solomon as Senenmut.

In the textbooks, that equate Sosenk I with the biblical Shishak, it is pharaoh Osorkon IV - or his (Nubian) general (un-named) - who is usually regarded as "Zerah the Ethiopian" who, in c.897 BC, attacked king Asa of Jerusalem with a massive army of Ethiopians and Libyans, but was soundly defeated by the Jewish king (2 Chronicles 14:9-15). Velikovsky had synchronized this biblical incident with the reign of the belligerent Amenhotep II (son of Thutmose III, Velikovsky's "Shishak") whom he equated with Zerah. Whilst I completely accept Velikovsky's dating here, I believe that his attempts to 'prove' that pharaoh Amenhotep II had Ethiopian blood flowing in his veins was not quite convincing.

Nor does the Bible say that Zerah was even a pharaoh; nor that he led native Egyptian troops. I, for my part, prefer to equate Zerah with Amenhotep's old friend, User-tatet, Nubian (Ethiopian) commander. I do not think that it is stretching the imagination too far to believe that Semites - who in the EA letters called Akhnaton, Naphuria, from his coronation name, Nepher-kheperura - could have turned User into Zerah. Moreover, we know from the Egyptian records that User-tatet did campaign in the vicinity of Maresha, in the Shephelah plain of Israel (given in the Egyptian records as Retenu - and distinguished from Upper Retenu, or the hill country). The Egyptian records, as it is thought, are not going to record any military defeat.

Now that I've synchronized Tuthmosis III's Kadesh campaign with the 5th year of Rehoboam, lining up Biblical dates with 18th Dynasty dates we get the final overthrow of the Hycsos in the same year the Amalekites attacks Ziklag and David became king. And the overthrow of Apepi is about 10-11 years before that, which is only a year or to before when Saul was sent to war against Agag.

I agree with Ages in Chaos about Agag being Apepi,

The early Hebrew written signs as they are preserved on the STELE OF MESHA show a striking resemblance BETWEEN THE LETTERS G (GIMEL) AND P (PEI). NO OTHER LETTERS are so much alike in shape as these: each is an oblique line connected to a shorter, more oblique line, and is similar to the written number 7, THE SIZE. OF THE ANGLE BETWEEN THE TWO OBLIQUE LINES CONSTITUTES THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.

Nevertheless, it seems that not the Hebrew reading but rather the EGYPTIAN MUST BE CORRECTED....Almost EVERY hieroglyphic consonant [Egyptian] stands for MORE THAN ONE SOUND, and only empirically are all the sounds symbolized by a consonant found.

but I don't agree with how this is presented in many other theories were Saul's war with him is the same battle as when the Thebans overthrew him.

Apepi seems to have been a usurper to begin with.

Apepi is thought to have usurped the throne of northern Egypt after the death of his predecessor, Khyan, since the latter had designated his son, Yanassi, to be his successor on the throne as a foreign ruler.
Ryholt, p.256

Who knows maybe neither his predecessor or successor where even Amalekites but of other Hyksos tribes.

Velikovsky and others are wrong in citing Genesis 14 as proving the Amalekites existed already before Esau/Edom. The reference to them there is an editorial gloss from Moses, telling his reader where on the Geography their familiar with he's referring to. Like how we after say "near modern _____".

So when it was his tyrannical behavior, particularly killing Seqenenre Tao, sparked the Theban revolution, I suspect the other Hyksos leaders overthrew him with a coup and banished him. He then with whatever supporters he had (mainly the fellow Amalekites) and set himself up a new home base in southern Israel.

Saul's refusal to simply kill Agag as ordered may have been politically motivated, seeing Agag as a useful hostage. Now if as generally thought he was just a leader of violent nomads I don't see him being to useful. But if he was an exiled former Pharaoh of Egypt? That makes sense. I Samuel 30 records an Amalekite having an Egyptian slave.

The timing also makes Tuthmosis I the Pharaoh when Solomon began his reign, and this who's Daughter Solomon married.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefrubity
Nefrubity (Akhbetneferu) was an ancient Egyptian princess of the 18th dynasty. She was the daughter of Pharaoh Thutmose I and Ahmose, the sister of Hatshepsut and the half-sister of Thutmose II, Wadjmose and Amenmose.
Aidan Dodson & Dyan Hilton: The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson, 2004, ISBN 0-500-05128-3 p.140

She is depicted with her parents in Hatshepsut's Deir el-Bahari mortuary temple, then vanishes. It is assumed that she died young.
Dodson & Hilton, p.130
Joyce Tyldesley: Queens of Egypt. 2006

The assumption she died young is of course I feel a false one. She disappears from Egyptian records because she was married to Solomon and after that remained in Israel.

Where I differ from Velikovsky

I agree with the basic pillars of Immanuel Velikovsky's Egyptian chronology (Middle Kingdom Exodus with the Hyksos invading some time after the Red Sea incident, Thuthmosis III as Shishak, El Amarna era during the divided Kingdom, Ramses II as Necho, Ramses III as Nectenbos of Diodorus with the Prstt being the Persian Empire and Sea Peoples as Ionian Greeks, The Maunier Stele depicts Alexander's visit to the Siwa Oasis).

 I don't agree with his weird theories about the planets though.

Rohl I don't agree with on Egyptian chronology, but I like his identification of Enmerkar with Nimrod and Eridu with Babel and have written my own study on that subject.

I do want to discus some of the details of Velikovsky and his contemporary supporters' model I disagree with.

On the Hyksos Amalekites connection which I've touched on elsewhere I just want to say I feel it's not that simple. The Hyksos were many tribes of Asiatic peoples. They included the Amalekites and possibly other Edomite tribes (I think the king remembered by Greek myth as Belus was an Edomite King connected in some way to Bela son of Beor of Genesis 36:32&33), I think they had a Midianite aspect too (Hor II of the 13th Dynasty I think was the Midanite king Hur mentioned in The Bible). Archaeology clearly shows they had an Amorite aspect at all.

The most prominent is Hatshepsut as the Queen of Sheba. If she was an Egyptian queen The Bible wouldn't have obscured that, it dealt with Solomon's interactions with Egypt unambiguously both before and after this. Also since Tuthmosis I must be the Pharaoh who's daughter Solomon married, Hatshepsut was her Sister. If this Queen was Solomon's sister in law that wouldn't been overlooked.

Yeshua calls her the "Queen of The South" in Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31. And then Daniel 11 is cited where the "King of The South" is consistently Egypt. South in Biblical geography is south of Israel/Jerusalem, in the context of Alexander's successors only Ptolemy is south of Israel, and Egypt was the core of his Kingdom but not all of it.

There are three Shebas on the Table of Nations, Two in Genesis 10 and another being Abrahamic. The two in Genesis 10 are one Hamitic/Cushite and the other Semitic/Joktanite. But in both I Kings 10 and II Chronicles 11 the Queen of Sheba narrative is linked to Ophir another Joktanite name. And the other two Shebas are virtually inseparable from the Dedan who is their brother, but no Dedan is alluded to here.

Serious Archaeologists all know that Sheba was the name of a Kingdom in southern Arabia, modern Yemen. ( Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman,David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition p. 167). The Saba that was a capital of Nubia/Ethiopia didn't appears till very late, Meroë was their Capital until after the fall of the 25th Dynasty (When Nubia ruled Egypt). The Cushite Sheba of Genesis 10 I believe settled in Ancient India where he was deified as Shiva and his rather Ramaah as Rama an avatar of Vishnu.

I do believe the Ark of the Covenant came to Ethiopia. But the Menelik legend is propaganda created by the Christian Auxomite kings to give them a Biblical lineage. I believe Graham Hancock and Bob Cornuke's theory for how it got there. First being at Elephantine island from sometime after King Manasseh's reign of terror to the time of Cambyses.

The Arabic traditions of Balqis/Bilqis/Bilquis did exist in Pre-Islamic times (Mohammed didn't really come up with much of anything new) and so have good reason to be viewed as more Ancient and Valid then the purely invented Ethiopian legend.

I do believe Hatshepsut probably visited Solomon also. The Bible says many rulers come to visit Solomon and witness his Wisdom. The Queen of Sheba is singled out NOT because she's the most important by secular standards, but because she became a Saved individual, so Yeshua cited her as such.

So I do agree that Punt was an Egyptian name for Canaan/Israel. And I don't think the similarity between Make-Ra (A name of Hatshepsut) and Makeda (The name of the Queen of Sheba in the Ethiopian traditions) is a coincidence. I think various Egytpian Jews, first at Elephantine and then latter in Alexandria and the Onias colony, drew the same false conclusion and began giving her that name. And this may have influenced Josephus who was very familiar with Alexandrian Jewish traditions.

El Amarna period.

I agree with Velikovsky's on Jehoshaphat as Ebed-Tov/Abdi-Heba King of Jerusalem and Mesha King of Moab with the Mesh of the Amarna letters. The Amarna letters also lsit 3 of the Captains of Jehoshaphat from II Chronicles 17:14-19. Addudani/Addadani=Adna and Ada-danu mentioned by Shalmaneser in 825 BC, "Son of Zuchru" = "son of Zichri", Iahzibada=Iehozabad/Jehozabad.

And I agree about the Habiru being bandits or mercenaries, not an ethnic term.

But his identity for Ahab is very problematic. Gubla is the Amarna letters name for Byblos not Jezreel. So Rib-Addi/Rib-Hadda was not Israelite.

Labaya I feel is logically is Ahab, (or whoever the Northern Kingdom ruler was at the time). The whole Jezebel-Nefertiti connection suggested by SpecialtyInterests I don't like however.

Velikovsky's references to "Sodomites" is really weird, he's unaware that that is a reference to Sodom only in English.

Velikovsky did NOT believe in the infallibility of Scripture. Which of course is an assumption many critics of revised chronology make about all revised chronologists. This fact about him is most apparent in the part of Age sin Chaos about the Death of Ahab. He basis it on what he saw as a contradiction between this verse.

II Kings 1:17 "So he died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son."

And these two verses.

II Kings 3:1 "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years."

II Kings 8:16 "And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign."

There is no contradiction here however, he'd know this if he'd studied Ussher's chronology. Jehoshaphat made his son a co ruler for the latter years of his reign, this is why the 18th year of Jehoshaphat can also be the second year of Jehoram.

As for the fact that Ahab did Repent after Elijah rebuked him over the Naboth business. That was negated when Ahab sinned again believing the False Prophets over Micaiah.

But Velikovsky creates a whole convoluted theory that Ahab survived the battle of Ramoth-Gilead and lived another 9 years.

Mesha of Moab's rebellion was right after Israel's defeat at Ramoth-Gilead, Velikovsky sees the Moabite stone documenting this event as saying it was in the Middle of Ahab's reign, not after he died. First off the stone sounds like he's relating a Prophesy made by a Prophet of Chemosh, who's Prophecy may have came true not not completely accurately. But also if it was made immediately at the start of the rebellion he may not have heard of Ahab's death yet.

Regardless of those arguments, not all readings of the Mesha Stele even agree with the one Velikovsky used to support his theory.

The Denyen of the Greek Islands

I said I agreed about the Prstt being the Persian Empire and Sea Peoples as Ionian Greeks. But his Identity of the "Peoples of the Islands" the Denyen as Athens I think is silly. The Denyen are also in the Amarna letters where they are in northern Syria, very northern, by the modern Turkish border. Associated with Hammath. Their also identified with Adana is Cilicia.

"And of Dan he said, Dan is a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan." Deuteronomy 33:22

The Tribe of Dan originally settled north of the Philistine Lands, around the port city of Joppa/Jaffa modern Tel-Aviv. The books of Joshua and Judges both record events when Danites left their allotted land traveled north conquered a city and renamed it Dan.

"And the coast of the children of Dan went out too little for them: therefore the children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt therein, and called Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their father." Joshua 19:47

The Judges 18 account, where the City is Laish, is often assumed to be the same event. There are however several differences between the two accounts:

1. In the Book of Joshua the children of Dan had received an inheritance in the south but it was insufficient for them and so they went to fight against Leshem. In Judges though the Danites were in the region of Zorah and Eshtaol (in the south) they had yet not taken possession of their own.

2. In Judges, at least at first, only six hundred went forth after receiving the report of a reconnoitering mission: on the other hand, the Book of Joshua may be understood to say that all (or nearly all) of Dan went to fight.

3. In the Book of Joshua the city taken is called Leshem: In Judges the city is called LAISH. Some Commentators have tried to state that "Leshem" and "Laish" are different forms of the same word but "leshem" in Hebrew is a type of precious stone (maybe amber) while "laish" means a young male lion.

The Joshua account refers to the Dan that is frequently used as an idiom of the Northern Border of the Kingdom, where Jeroboam built one of his Idols, and which on the map of modern Israel is in the Golan heights on the Lebanon border.

The Judges event is clearly much further north. They encountered Sidonians, but those Sidonians are also implied to be far from home. Laish is also know as Luash and the Danites who migrated there became known as Dananu.

The king of Sma'al in the valley north of ASI (Orontes embouchemont) on the edge of LUASH (LIASH) called himself "KING of the DANIM" i.e. of the Danes of Dan. The Danes (Dananu) also controlled the neighbouring area of Cilicia and at one stage their capital was Adana by Tarsis of Cilicia and their suzerainity reached as far north as Karatepe. A bi-lingual inscription of theirs found at Karatepe employs a Phoenician type of Hebrew and a version of Hittite. Branches of the Hittites in Anatolia neighboured the Dananu of Cilicia. This northern portion of Dan is referred to variously as Dananu, Danau, Denye, Denyen, Danuna.

Above I've borrowed a great deal from Britam's "Dan and the Serpent Way" study. I don't agree with all of Britam's premise obviously, or any other form of British Israelism, but Dan does have a unique history.

Secular scholars agree on connecting the Denyen to the Tribe of Dan, you can read about it on Wikipedia's Denyen and Dan pages, but the sequence is reversed.  They believe the Denyen traveled south and became incorporated into the Hebrew confederation. This supports their desire to claim that the various Tribes of Israel didn't even really have a common origin. Traditional chronology makes that argument easy for them but still doesn't make the Biblical picture impossible. But revised chronology makes it indisputable which Dan came first.

The connection Dan has to Greece, is Biblically alluded to in Ezekiel 27.