Benjamin Aich has produced an article which will be of interest to researchers in 1 Timothy, especially those who are interested in the use of the OT in the Pastorals.
Benjamin Aich. “Allusive Echoes Between Jeremiah 36 LXX and 1 Timothy 2:1–2: An Inner-Biblical Study.” Restoration Quarterly 65.1 (2023): 1–15.
“Since Thomas Aquinas, many commentators on the Pastoral Epistles have noted some sort of echo or allusion to Jer 29:7 (36:7 LXX) in the paraenesis of 1 Tim 2:1–2 . But before Aquinas, Augustine brought the literary, theological, and exilic context of Jer 36 LXX to bear on his discussion of 1 Tim 2:1–2 (Catech. 21.37; cf. Faust. 12.36). Exploring such features, as Augustine did, is only the natural result of noting a reference or an allusion to one verse in a specific context. However, Augustine’s example of broad engagement has been severely neglected. Combating this trend, I investigate the allusion to Jer 36:7 LXX in 1 Tim 2:1–2 in order to understand the broader interplay between the texts, so that students, scholars, and clergy would grasp how Jer 36 LXX might serve and illumine 1 Timothy’s discourse.”
Aich has made his article available at his Academia page.
Another essay has been added to the ocean of literature on 1 Timothy 2:8–15:
Mary Schieferstein. “Formation, Deception, and Childbearing: Reading 1 Timothy 2:13–3:1a in Light of Genesis 2–4.” Presbyterion 47.1 (2021): 112–20.
The paper has no abstract. Schieferstein notes lexical connections between the 1 Timothy and Genesis passages. She finds that “it seems that Paul understands teaching and exercising authority … to be a role for qualified man, rooted in this creational order” (114). She follows Schreiner’s explanation of the situation in Eden: Satan turned the ordered relationship between Adam and Eve on its head, targeting Eve while bypassing Adam, who was present but failed to intervene, abrogating his position of male leadership. In v. 15, it is Eve who will be [spiritually] saved by means of childbearing, and it is Adam and Eve who are in view as continuing “in the virtues which evidence saving faith” (118–19). Being saved by means of childbearing points to the fact that Eve’s giving birth eventuated in the birth of Christ many centuries later; “had Eve never undergone the process of giving birth, there would be no Christ and therefore no salvation” (119).
Schieferstein’s article in Presbyterion comes on the heels of a triad of articles on the larger passage in the same journal:
Marjorie J. Cooper and Jay G. Caballero. “Reasoning through Creation Order as a Basis for the Prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12.” Presbyterion 43.1 (2017): 30–38.
Marjorie J. Cooper. “The Prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 in Light of Eve’s Having Been Deceived (1 Tim. 2:14–15).” Presbyterion 44.1 (2018): 115–25.
Marjorie J. Cooper. “Analysis and Conclusions regarding 1 Timothy 2:9–3:1a.” Presbyterion 45.1 (2019): 96–107.
A new article by Ervin Budiselić does not focus heavily on the Pastorals, but I mention it here because of its obvious relevance for 1 Timothy 5:19, which is discussed on pp. 189–90. The article is available in its entirety at the address cited.
Budiselić, Ervin. “The Church as a Court: the Requirement for ‘Two or Three Witnesses.’” Kairos: Evangelical Journal of Theology 15.2 (2021): 179–94. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32862/k.15.2.3
Abstract: “The Church in the New Testament is described with various images, and this article argues that one image that is implicitly present in the New Testament is the Church as a “court” or a “community of trial.” First, this can be argued because the God of the Bible – YHWH – is Creator, King, and Judge. That means that YHWH’s community is responsible, per YHWH’s revelation, to maintain the purity of its members in all aspects of life. Second, in the New Testament, we find examples where the Church functions as a court. However, the question is, does the biblical requirement for “two or three witnesses” also support the claim that the Church should function as a court? The purpose of this article is to identify places where the biblical command about “two or three witnesses appear,” to trace its development and to see what role and place it plays in the Church. By doing so, we would demonstrate that the presence of this stipulation in the New Testament is additional proof that we should sometimes view the Church as a “court.” The first part of the article explains that the context for the concept of witness is the Mosaic covenant and underlying assumption that governs the command about “two and three witnesses.” The second part analyzes the appearance of “two or three witnesses” in the Old Testament. In the third part, we will argue that the Church is truly a community of trial. We will so argue by observing selected examples from the New Testament where the Church functions as a court, and by tracking the development of the requirement about “two or three witnesses” in the New Testament. Based on this research, we will end by offering a reflection and a conclusion.”
I might mention that in addition to the literature cited in the article, one might add (though somewhat dated) an early monograph on the topic: H. van Vliet, No Single Testimony: A Study on the Adaptation of the Law of Deut. 19:15 Par. into the New Testament, Studia Theologica Rheno-Traiectina 4 (Utrecht: Kreminck en Zoon, 1958).