Blasphemy, Talion, and Chiasmus 71 your God” (v. 22b = D’), adds weight to the second interpretation (again, see 21,6-8; 22,2.32). It implies that when the man “curses” his God he is clearly rejecting the divine assertion, “I am the Lord your God” (8). The correspondence between 24,15a and 24,23a is undeniable (C + C’). The word order is different, but the same verb and object are used, and v. 23a names the assumed subject of v. 15a. There is similar certitude in the pairing of vv. 14 and 23b (B + B’). The verbs and objects of both clauses in v. 23b match those in the first and third clauses of v. 14, as v. 23 reports the fulfillment of the directive given in v. 14. The earlier partner is longer because of the additional clause in the middle of v. 14, about placing hands on the perpetrator. The omission of this clause from v. 23 is puzzling, but interpreters generally assume that the people performed this act, as v. 14 requires (see the fulfillment notice in v. 23c). The final clause of v. 23 rounds off the chiasmus by mentioning “the Lord” and “Moses” again, corresponding to the narrated introduction of v. 13, which states simply “the Lord spoke to Moses”. The additional portion in v. 23 is the fulfillment notice (“the children of Israel did as the Lord had commanded Moses”). Similar fulfillment notices are prominent in the narrative sections interspersed in this central portion of the Torah, serving an important literary function in the final narrative block of Exodus (Exod 35,1.4.10.29; 36,1.5; 38,21-22; 39,1.5.7.21.26.29.31.32.42-43; 40,16.19.21. 23.25.27.29.32), in the only other narrative section of Leviticus (Lev 8,5.9.13.17.21.29.31.34.36; 9,5.7.10.21; 10,15; cp. 10,1.5.7.18), and in the opening block of Numbers (Num 1,19.54; 2,33.34; 3,16.39.42.51; 4,37.41.45.49; 5,4; 8,3.20.22; 9,5.18.19.20.23). It is logical to conclude that a common author/redactor is responsible for all these narrative sections. The clause declares the obedience of the people, which is crucial to establishing and maintaining the sanctity of the cult. The act of cursing God threatens that sanctity, and this passage reports how the people successfully averted that threat. In sum, all of Lev 24,13-23 forms a chiasmus, built around the lex talionis, which itself constitutes a simple syntactical chiasmus. The two outer layers of the chiasmus (A + A’, B + B’) constitute a legal decision and its execution in their own right, and the six inner layers illustrate in repetitive literary form the legal principle that lies at the core of that decision, the lex talionis. (8) Many interpreters assume that the blasphemer in this episode is considered an “alien”, and that one purpose of the law is to establish that aliens — like this man — are to be punished just like native-born Israelites in cases of blasphemy (e.g., WELCH, “Chiasmus in Biblical Law”, 11-12). However, the Israelite identification of the man’s mother might intend to identify him as Israelite as well. This was certainly the case in post-exilic Judea. It is not certain that the people consider this man an “alien”, much less a “foreigner”. More to the point, it is not certain that they already know how to respond if an Israelite curses God, and that now they are wondering how to respond when an alien commits such an offense. That could be the case, but we cannot be certain. In any case, the law is stated broadly enough to show that this individual is subject to it.