Blasphemy, Talion, and Chiasmus: The Marriage of Form and Content in Lev 24,13-23 There is only one narrative in all of Lev 11–27. It is a brief narrative in Lev 24,10-12 that relates the story of a young man who “blasphemed the Name and cursed” during a fight. Moses and the people ask the Lord to advise them on how to deal with this offense, and the subsequent speech gives the divine response (24,13-23). The writer presents the report of the response as an extended chiasmus. “The inverted symmetry or reverse parallelism of this passage is engaging, impressive, extensive, and pleasing” (1). Jacob Milgrom remarks that while the chiastic structure of this passage has long been recognized, the “ideological implications” of it have not been fully fathomed (2). The present exposition intends to take us a little deeper than before, but does not pretend to fathom all the depths in this significant passage. I will use Welch’s treatment of this passage as my starting-point, delineating the chiastic structure and linking it to one or two other dominant stylistic features; and then I will similarly develop some thoughts regarding interpretation, noting those that Welch lays out and adding a couple more. My initial goal is to affirm his conclusion that the use of chiasmus contributes significantly to the ideological message of the passage. Not only does the chiastic structure provide the literary means to develop and reinforce the legal principle of talion that lies at the heart of the divine decision, as Welch contends, but at the same time it illuminates the extreme gravity of the sin of blasphemy. The result is aesthetically pleasing at the literary level, but it also intends to facilitate the reader’s reception and implementation of the Lord’s verdict by reinforcing the talionic principle that the punishment fits the crime. 1. Chiastic Presentation of Lev 24,13-23 (MT) I have laid out the (unpointed) Masoretic text of Lev 24,13-23 in the adjoining chart, showing how I see the chiasmus in its various corresponding layers. The layer designated ‘I’ does not have a parallel because it constitutes the fulcrum of the chiasmus (24,20a). The translations in the discussion that follows are my own. (1) J.W. WELCH, “Chiasmus in Biblical Law: An Approach to the Structure of Legal Texts in the Hebrew Bible”, Jewish Law Association Studies IV: The Boston Conference Volume (ed. B.S. JACKSON) (Atlanta, GA 1990) 8. (2) J. MILGROM, Leviticus 23–27 (AB; New York 2000) 2130. For some recent acknowledgements of the chiastic structure, see M. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford 1985) 101; G.J. WENHAM, Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI 1979) 312.