Conference yukon::christian_v7

Hello Rosalind, and welcome....

The verse you need is Deuteronomy 22:5

 "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, 
  for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this."

				[New International Version]

 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither
  shall a man put on a woman's garment; for all that do so are abomination 
  unto the LORD thy God."
				['Authorized' - King James - Version]


							Andrew

    Thanks for your reply. Have you any idea how male actors playing women
    got around that ruling then? (ie is there another quote ;-)
    
    Regards,
    Rosalind

  Hi Rosalind,

  I guess you might say that they got around it by using a little common
  sense. In the period of time that this scripture was written, both men
  and women wore "robes", and/or garments that were simply something
  like a blanket and wrapped it around themselves and over their heads.
  using cords to form it to their body. There was no doubt some 
  distinctivness in their apparel, probably in the design and pattern
  and such things as tassles, etc. However, the Hebrews lived amongst a
  people who were worshippers of Baal, these people practised every form
  of "unusual" behavior known to man, Jehovah required the Hebrews to 
  practise a strict code of distinctiveness between the sexes to be a
  witness to the the Baalites (and the world) concerning His desire for 
  mankind, "the nuclear family". My assumption is that if ones motive is 
  to play the role (as in the performing arts) of a member of the opposite 
  sex simply to portray a personality (historical or fictional) apart from 
  endorsing the practises of the worshippers of Baal, then it was allowed.
    
                        Hank

    How come women weren't allowed to act then?
    
    Regards,
    Rosalind

Hi Rosalind, 

The only [oblique] use of / references to acting in the Bible I can recall
are :

  The Gibeonite deception, when they pretended to have travelled from outside
  the territory in order to deceive the Israelites into a treaty (Joshua 9)

  The 'tableaux' put on by some of the prophets, by direct revelation (eg 
  Isaiah 20:2-4, Jeremiah 19:1..10-13, Ezekiel 4)

However, in none of these cases were those concerned pretending to be 
anyone other than themselves, let alone someone of the opposite sex.  My
feeling is that acting would not be permitted in the orthodox context. 
Like making any representation of a living being was forbidden, in case of
it leading to idolatry (Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 4:16-25, 5:8). 

Hi Hank,
.3� My assumption is that if ones motive is to play the role (as in the
.3� performing arts) of a member of the opposite sex simply to portray a
.3� personality (historical or fictional) apart from endorsing the 
.3� practises of the worshippers of Baal, then it was allowed. 

My take there is that there wouldn't be any special dispensation for 
acting, as that would only be a loophole excuse for actual impersonation.
The "I was only acting" claim has no distinction when bowing before an 
idol...  Naaman, in 2 Kings 5:18, is an interesting consideration in this
respect. 

							Andrew

  Re .4 Rosalind

  Well Rosalind, 

  I'll have to make another assumption...

  probably because in 16th century England common sense was not applied
  to women.  

  In your base note you quote (I believe its a quote) the following 
  regarding 16th century male actors : 

  "they were less liable to temptation - sic"

  This probably comes from a misunderstanding of the following passage

  "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission, and I do not permit
   a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence
   For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived but the
   woman being deceived, fell into transgression".
   I Timothy 2:11-14 New KJV.

   The key word is "over" a man. 

   The English understood this in the political realm, When a queen ascended
   to the throne she was allowed to rule because she was in submission to
   the Bishop. In other realms (such as ecclesiastical) they wern't so
   flexible (and wrongly, I believe).

   Re .5 Andrew

   Yes, you are probably right Re: Israel at the time you speak of, however
   Rosalind is asking concerning 16th century England, not being an english
   culture historian, I (must for the most part) speculate and make assumptions.

                   Hank

.6� Rosalind is asking concerning 16th century England, not being an english
Not in termsa of asking for a Biblical quote! ;-)

							Andrew

  Re .7  Andrew

  Uh, oh, me sorry   :-(     (I think).

  Hank

    Thanks for your help, chaps. The reason I am asking is of course
    because of the all pervasive influence of the Bible especially in the
    Middle Ages.
    
    Regards,
    Rosalind