Craig

When discussing Cheryl’s 2006 view @203, you said
“Is it possible that “she” could by pass “the woman” of v14 and refer back to “a woman” of v11 & 12?”
“It still doesn’t make sense.”

I have understood Cheryl’s 2006 view with v13,14 as a kind of parenthesis giving the reasons for v11,12. So Paul gives a prohibition to a woman, then gives the reason for this in v13,14. He then continues to discuss the woman in v15. Its only confusing because Paul happened to discuss a woman (Eve) in his reason. If he had of given some other reason with no woman in it, it would have been quite clear that “she” was referring back to v12. Of course Tim would have known these things and not been confused.
I’m not sure that I really follow what your seeing that doesn’t make sense. Sorry.