Ok, let’s review the bidding, first by reviewing the positive features of the argument, then those that don’t work so well.

On the plus side:

- The argument works better with phusis “nature” than most other arguments. I claimed too much when I equated this with medical science, but as Paul uses the term it does seem to refer to something physical within a body or being. We recognize short hair on men and long hair on women as cultural, not something imposed by nature itself.

- The argument gives full meaning to the preposition anti governing the genitive peribolaiou, which would have the connotation of “instead of, in the place of, in lieu of.” Virtually all English tranlsations fudge this. The concept is one of equivalency or exchange; a woman’s hair is given to her in lieu of a peribolaion.

- The argument avoids the contradiction of requiring a woman to wear a covering, but saying that her hair itself already serves as a covering.

- The ancient medical literature seems to support the argument. (This is actually part of a broader study to bring to bear ancient medical science on scriptural exegesis.)

- The ancient medical notion of women as imperfect or lesser men works well with the rest of Paul’s argument.

On the minus side:

- I think ascribing the meaning “testicle” to peribolaion is pretty problematic. That word lit. means “that which is thrown around,” and its basic meaning is some sort of a “covering.” Euripides does indeed use the word to mean “encasements of flesh”; IE euphemistic for “testicles” [and metaphoric for "youth, manhood"]. But as several have pointed out, that usage derives from Attic. The word is not at all common, but I cannot find a comparable usage in any other Koine text. So query, if this is what Paul meant, would a first century reader have understood him?

- Ronan has a point, in that the plural would be a more natural usage than the singular.

- As J. and others point out, if the argument is taken to its logical conclusion, women should never show their hair, nor should men.

- Trailer Trash raises an interesting question about meshing this argument with v. 10.

In sum, I think the strength of the argument is the medical science, and the weakness is the lexical connection of peribolaion to testicle.

After hashing this out, I’m inclined to be sceptical. If this is what Paul intended, then it was a strained attempt by Paul to bring the science of his day to bear on the argument he really was trying to make, which was grounded in the culture. Contradictions remain, but it may be folly to assume that the contradictions in Paul’s argument were not there all along.

The medical literature is about fertility. I am much more persauded that the veil for women is a prophylactic against the lust of angels (i.e. Gen 6) as they commune with God in prayer and prophesy. Tertullian gives this interpretation of the text as well. The warning about the angels in 1 Cor 11:10 seems to support this reading, but doesn’t fit at all with the question about fertility.

I don’t see how this can be related to Paul’s concern here with how one should pray. What am I missing?

I researched this question after reading the phrase “enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” I found (Jewish Encyclopedia) that it was thought that vaginal discharge was the female equivalent of semen, so Eve was said to have “seed.”

Not all of us do all our thinking between our legs thanks.