72 Timothy M. Willis 2. Other Stylistic Considerations Despite the general symmetry provided by the chiastic structure of the passage, there is a consistent imbalance to the speech, particularly in its four inner layers. The part just prior to the central fulcrum (v. 19 = H) consists of a main clause with “give” (natan) as the main verb, followed by a subordinate clause (“just as…”) that contains the active and passive forms of the same verb (“do”). The corresponding line in v. 20b (H’) is shorter. It collapses the two clauses of v. 19 and consists solely of a subordinate clause that contains the active and passive forms of “give”. We find a different sort of imbalance in the next layer out (vv. 18 and 21a, lines G and G’). The object is identified as “the life of an animal” in the earlier line, but the latter line speaks more simply of one smiting “an animal”. Also, the earlier statement is supplemented with the talionic phrase, “life for life” (v. 18), but the phrase is absent from the corresponding line in v. 21a. The next layer (F + F’) is imbalanced in a slightly different way. The object is identified by the fuller expression, “the life of a human”, in the earlier line (v. 17), while the latter line speaks more simply of “a human”; this matches the style of the adjoining layer (just mentioned). Similarly, the verbs provide a shift that is parallel to the adjoining layer, as the writer expresses the verb of judgment with an intensive infinitive in v. 17 (“he shall surely be put to death”), but there is only a simple verb in the corresponding line (v. 21b — “he shall be put to death”). This brings us to the greatest imbalance of the entire chiasmus, the imbalance between v. 16 and v. 22a (E and E’). The only direct correspondence between the two pieces involves the brief comparison clause (“like alien, like citizen”). This means that the clause, “You shall have one judgment”, in v. 22a is structurally equivalent to everything but the comparison clause in v. 16. Verse 16 contains two intensive infinitive constructions (“[he] shall surely die” and “[they] shall surely stone him”), followed by a comparison clause and then a simple reiteration of the initial verb clause (“[he] shall die”). The chiastic structure of the whole speech shows that the brief statement about “one judgment” in v. 22a serves as a structural parallel and summation of the much longer dual judgment prescriptions and the abbreviated reiteration in v. 16 (E + E’). The literary features of the expanded statement in v. 16 are significant, because they actually push the reader forward, toward the center of the chiasmus. The expansion in v. 16 consists of an intensive infinitive construction (“he shall surely be put to death”), supplemented by a second intensive infinitive (“they shall surely stone him”), and then recapitulated by the simple form of the first verb (“he shall be put to death”). These features point the reader toward the next two layers of the chiasmus because the pattern of movement from intensive verb to regular verb — “he shall surely be put to death” // “he shall be put to death” — constitutes a primary component of the chiastic structuring of those layers (vv. 17 and 21b; F and F’). Just as the E + E’ layer points toward the inner layers of the chiasmus, so the statement in the F + F’ layer points the reader inward, toward the chiastic core of the pericope. The literary style is significant secondly because v. 16 uses two intensive infinitives in addressing most directly the reason for this