Craig

why did Paul speak of it just once, in a private letter to his “deputy,” rather than in a letter to the whole church? And why didn’t he say anything about it to the church at Rome, where women had a much greater chance of being educated and ready to preach? Why did he spend so much time at the end of Romans praising what women were doing rather than telling them what they weren’t supposed to be doing?

It doesn’t make sense.

I agree Kristen. It doesn’t make sense.

I just found this from CBMW

Merkle, Benjamin L. “Paul’s Arguments from Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14: An Apparent Inconsistency Answered.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 3 (2006): 527-48.
Merkle analyzes 1 Cor 11:8-9 and 1 Tim 2:13-14, in which Paul grounds his arguments in the order of creation, and shows that it is not inconsistent to reject the need for women to wear head coverings while still affirming that women are not to teach or have authority over men. The reason for this, Merkle argues, is that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul only indirectly uses the argument from creation to affirm head coverings for women in order to demonstrate that creation affirms gender and role distinctions between men and women. The result is that in the Corinthian context this distinction was to be upheld through head coverings. In 1 Timothy 2, however, Paul directly uses the argument from creation to demonstrate that women cannot teach or have authority over men, thus making this command transcultural.

I have only seen this summary. I haven’t seen the whole article, but I guess Merkle argues that
1 Cor 11 goes
Adam first, then Eve b) Men have authority over women c) head covering
1 Tim 2 goes
Adam first, then Eve, and Eve deceived b) Men have authority over women, and women shouldn’t teach.
He may argue that b) results directly from a) and so is transcultural, whereas c) is indirect and only a specific application for the time.

Any thoughts?