70 Timothy M. Willis The next two levels of the chiasmus (moving outward) concern the killing of an animal and the killing of a human, respectively (G + G’ = vv. 18 + 21a, F + F’ = vv. 17 + 21b). The corresponding statements regarding the killing of an animal (G + G’) identify the killer with the same participle (makkeh), both identify the victim as behemah, and both instruct the offender to “make restitution” (yeπallemennah; vv. 18 and 21a). The two statements concerning homicide (F and F’) follow a similar pattern, employing the same verb to describe the killer, identifying the victim with the same word in each statement, and using the same verb to describe the fate of the victim and the fate of the perpetrator. The next layer in the chiasmus is the most imbalanced (vv. 16 and 22a; E and E’). The only example of verbal correspondence comes in the phrase, “like alien, like native-born”. The explanation for this imbalance derives from the context of the passage, which will be demonstrated below. The identification of vv. 15b and 22b as an isolated layer in this chiasmus (D + D’) is debatable (again, Welch joins this layer with the one just mentioned). I separate these lines from the adjoining layers by virtue of the juxtaposed use of “his God” (v. 15b) and “your God” (v. 22b). Verses 15b and 22b taken together essentially represent a synonymous parallel with the instructions of Lev 22,2 and Lev 22,32, both of which link a prohibition against profaning the Lord’s name (hallel ’et πem) with the common self-identification clause (“I am the Lord”; cp. 21,6. 8) (5). Interpreters have debated the precise meaning of the instruction in 24,15b. Some take this as a statement of a general truth about any religion: “Anyone who curses his god [whether that god be the Lord or any other god] shall bear his sin”. In such an understanding, v. 16 follows v. 15b to specify that “bearing his sin” will entail death in the case of a worshiper of the Lord who curses the Lord (6). I agree with a second group of interpreters that understand v. 15 more narrowly, regarding the prohibition against someone cursing “his god” as a direct reference to cursing the Lord (7). The charge mentioned in the preceding narrative is that the man “blasphemed the name and cursed” (24,11). The repetition of the latter verb in the prohibition lends some support to the second interpretation, which sees the prohibition in v. 15b dealing specifically with the offense. The present suggestion that the phrase “anyone who curses his God” (v. 15b = D) stands in chiastic parallel to the phrase, “I am the Lord (5) The writer uses two phrases in 24,11 to denote the man’s offense: he “blasphemes the Name (of the Lord)” and he “curses (his God)”. Both expressions appear in the narrative (v. 11) and in the law (vv. 15-16). The first verb (naqab) normally carries a rather neutral connotation of “mention” or “utter” (see Num 1,17; 1 Chr 16,41). It only conveys a derogatory meaning here because of its close association with “curse” (qallel). In verse 11 the two verbs form a compound predicate (“he blasphemed… and he cursed”), which probably is to be read as a hendiadys — for example, “he blasphemed in a curse” (NRSV), or “he pronounced by cursing blasphemously” (B. LEVINE, Leviticus [JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia, PA 1989] 166). In vv. 15-16 the same verbs are used in consecutive clauses, but their order has been reversed. (6) For example, FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 101; J.E. HARTLEY, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas, TX 1992) 406; J. JOOSTEN, People and Land in the Holiness Code (Leiden 1996) 69. (7) For example, MILGROM, Leviticus 23-27, 2115; E.S. GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus (OTL; Louisville, KY 1996) 362.