The upcoming 2015 International Meeting of SBL lists three papers on the 1 Timothy. The first looks like the most interesting to me. It would be interesting to see how Graham’s work compares to that of Tim Swinson. Tamez’s title sounds like it may be drawn from her monograph which was not impressive. Thanks to Chuck Bumgardner for pointing out these titles and abstracts.
Graham, Brett M. “The Intertextuality of 1 Timothy: A Comparison of the Allusions to the Septuagint and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha in the Epistle.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the SBL, Buenos Aires, 22 July 2015.
Abstract: The Pastoral Epistles extol the Holy Scriptures as being foundational for Christian living (2 Tim 3:15-16; cf. 1 Tim 4:13), but there is only one actual citation of these Scriptures (1 Tim 5:18) in all three of the letters. Even when the handful obvious quotations are considered, there is still not the level of engagement that might be expected from the writings described as ‘useful for every good work’ (2 Tim 3:16). Meanwhile, the quotation from Epimenides in Tit 1:12 suggests that the author of the Epistles may have also had a number of other sources to draw upon. This paper seeks to investigate the way that the first of the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Timothy, engages with external sources. Particular attention will be given to the influence of both the Septuagint and the Jewish (or O.T.) Pseudepigrapha, including a comparison of the manner and extent that these two sets of documents are referenced. In this process, a distinction will be drawn between simple idioms, influences and allusions. In simple idioms, the Epistle will share vocabulary or ideas with a possible source text but there will be no apparent reason, or benefit, of referring to that text. In contrast, the source text for an influence or allusion will provide an answer to unresolved problem in the Epistle. By applying such categories consistently throughout the whole of 1 Timothy, a clear picture of the importance of these extant documents will be evident.
Houwelingen, Rob van. “Meaning and Significance of the Instruction about Women in 1 Timothy 2:12-15.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the SBL, Buenos Aires, 23 July 2015.
Abstract: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet”. Many Christians of the 21st century feel rather uncomfortable with the instruction about women from 1 Timothy 2. On the basis of his particular passage many church leadership positions have been reserved for men. But how should it be handled? First, I will make some remarks about the meaning of 1 Timothy 2. In regard to the vulnerable male/female relationship within the Christian congregation, the text refers back to the beginning of mankind: the creation, the fall and the redemption of the first human couple, Adam and Eve. The Genesis narrative tells a story of human weakness. In short: Eve was created after Adam; the woman let herself be fooled by Satan and therefore fell into transgression. She, however, would find salvation in her motherhood (1 Tim.2:15a should be translated: “she”, i.e. Eve). After that, I will discuss the significance of this passage for today. It is hermeneutically important to be aware of some key differences between our present context and that of the apostolic church. Let me mention only the central issue. The stipulation that women ought to be silent in the church is consistent with the accepted and prevailing social situation of those days. In our time, however, this command runs counter to the accepted social situation. We should consider that the instruction of 1 Timothy 2 aims to preserve the established order, both in the church and in society. Still, the overall message from 1 Timothy 2 seems to be that peaceful living is essential. Therefore, Christians are supposed to live a ‘normal’ life. Church leadership should empower them, without abusing authority and taking into account the male/female relationship.
Tamez, Elsa. “Struggles for Power in Early Christianity: The Case of 1 Timothy.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the SBL, Buenos Aires, 21 July 2015. (no abstract)
. She cited some verbal parallels in this text, though her point was not entirely clear to me. She argued for a basic A, B. A’ structure in various places- some of which has been commonly noted in the literature. She did argue that this text prohibits women from certain ministry but suggested it is not necessarily binding, stating, “There have been men and women who have refused to heed this text.”. She stated, in what may have been an off hand comment, “So the only way out for women is rebellion.” 
, essentially approached the Pastorals on the assumption that they are written as late as three generations after Paul and asked “Who needed this memory of Paul?” She was concerned with how different groups- particularly marginalized or oppressed groups- would have “remembered” the ideas contained in the letter. She stated that she did not think the Pastorals were reflections of reality and said we ought to pay as little attention to the Pastoral Epistles as possible because they contain dangerous hierarchies and are texts of terror. She noted, with apparent disappointment that she found little destabilizing ideas in the Pastoral Epistles, i.e. they were socially conventional. 
portrayal of the Pastorals as the “grumpy old uncle” whom you learn to tolerate. She also affirmed the statement of Linda Maloney (in 
) that the author of the Pastorals was “a frightened would-be authority on the defensive.”