“... The identification of the king of Egypt as a dragon was probably bolstered by the association of Egypt with its prominent geographical feature, the Nile River, as well as Egyptian traditions portraying its king as a fierce croco­ dile.52 However, the notion of the Nile River as an emblem for Egypt and the portrayal of Egypt’s kings as crocodiles cannot account for the elaborate details in Ezek 29 and 32. Rather, these passages fit within the conflict topos. Representation of the king of Egypt as the dragon (and of Egypt as Rahab) of combat traditions was compatible with and possibly attracted by the identi­ fication of Egypt with a prominent body of water and the king of Egypt with the crocodile. Several specific narrative details of Ezek 29:2–6 and 32:2–16 are similar to earlier and later articulations of the conflict topos: the enemy is portrayed as arrogant (KTU 1.5 I 1–8; Job 41:26; Dan 7:8; 2 Macc 5:21, 9:8; Rev 13:3–8; 2 Thess 2:1–12); the enemy is portrayed as a sea-dragon (KTU 1.3 III 38–42; KTU 1.83; Ps 74:13–14; Isa 27:1; Rev 12, 13, 16, and 20); the deity uses hooks or nets to secure the enemy (EE IV; Job 40:25–26); the corpse of the slain enemy is left exposed (EE IV 129–140, V 53–63; KTU 1.2 IV 21–27; KTU 1.6 II 30–37; Ps 74:14); and defeat of the enemy indicates the victorious dei­ ty’s incomparability (EE V 133–136; Ps 89:6–15; Job 41:2–3). As these shared features demonstrate, Ezek 29:2–6 and 32:2–16 exhibit continuity with a wide range of conflict traditions. At the same time, Ezek 29:2–6 and 32:2–16 employ the motif in a way that suits the particular socio-political context of Ezekiel. According to the text, Ezekiel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and within this context Ezek 29:2–6 and 32:2–16 claim that Yahweh will punish the king of Egypt. The motivation for this punishment is that Egypt failed to adequately support Judah as an ally (Ezek 29:6–7), thus contributing to its destruction.53 ...”