Darryl wrote:I just tell them about the two candidates for the most likely correct translation according to the rabbis - as a Jewish source is closer to the original and more likely to understand the nuances than a Roman Catholic translator or King James's translators (who paid a bit more attention to Jerome's work than they perhaps should have):
1. Men and women are not to dress as the opposite gender for purposes of going in among the other gender for purposes of adultery.
2. Men are not to dress as women in order to sneak out of camp to avoid battle, and women are not to take up the implements of the warrior.
There are many situations where roles swapped from gender depending on circumstances. During the 16/17th century women woud dress as men to go along on travels to the far east etc. In the Netherlands there is a song from that era concerning a girl being abay as she wanted to go sailing...
The laws pertaining to penalise wearing clothes of the other gender can be found all along, at times as religious rules, at times as civil or penal law. It depended on the system of government at the time and especially how the law giver claimed to obtain his authority. E.g. Egypt, kings which were devine, Jews worldly leaders which derived their powers from a devine spirit, the Romans with the tendency to copy the Egyptians (Ceasar had a devin status and was on the same footing as a God).
But I do think the best conclusion would be that even though many laws were put in place to block cross gender dressing, they were always to no avail in the end. And yes if people want to enforce the previously mentioned article, than we should start stoning adultery committing persons also and Christian women should wear scarfs with tassels again, etc. All or nothing.