Hard Teaching 6 - An error occurred

An error occurred the other Sunday.

I was away preaching at another church, and I left incorrect instructions about the first Bible reading. I asked for 1 Timothy 2 to be read, and omitted to say that I wanted the reading to stop at verse 8.
The theme of the service was praying for the world, and I wanted people to hear the instructions to offer "petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving [ ... ] for all people — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness."
But the passage goes on, asking men to pray "lifting up holy hands with anger or disputing" and women to dress modestly and keep their mouths shut, because Adam was made first then Eve. So the pesky females should know their place and remember it was their fault that humanity was chucked out of the the Garden of Eden because Eve gave way to temptation and ate the apple.

What???
Where did this sudden burst of misogynistic claptrap come from?

It sticks out from the rest of the letter like a sore thumb - there's one other reference to women being "temperate and trustworthy" in chapter 3, but otherwise nothing. From what we know about Paul, he worked happily with women, treating them as equal partners in God's work. He even seems to have regarded them as worthy leaders of local churches, something which went against the prevailing culture of the day, which denied women positions of leadership and authority.

What explanation can there be?
Here are some possibilities.

1. Perhaps Paul didn't write this bit. It could have been added by someone else later on, or the whole letter could have been written in Paul's name, but not actually written by him. Such "pseudapigraphal" writing seems dishonest to us, but back in the day, it was nothing unusual. Plato, for instance, write a lot of his philosophy as if he was Socrates talking - it was regarded as a legitimate way for a disciple to claim the authority of his master.
2. Perhaps we fail to appreciate the culture of the day, Women were not accustomed to any public roles, and for the church to break this tradition would have caused offence and not been understood. It was more appropriate for the church to remain in its culture, whilst pointing towards a better way of doing things. This argument is deployed in the slavery argument - where Paul in his letter to a slave owner, Philemon, clearly hopes that Phil will pardon his runaway slave, but acknowledges that he has the right to do what he pleases with his property. 
3. Maybe it's God's truth and should be taken literally. There are those in the church who use passages like this to argue that women should not have authority within the church, that women bishops or even women priests are not right.
4. Or maybe we should take a pair of scissors and gently snip this little bit out of our Bibles. We'll feel much better if we don't have to keep reading it.

Which one shall we choose? Please comment and tell me your preference, and in a day or three I'll tell you what I would do.