This short article by T.C. Skeat examines 2Ti 4.13:

When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. (2Ti 4.13, ESV)

Skeat offers the suggestion that perhaps μάλιστα, here translated above all, should be instead translated as namely. He writes:

My own suggestion is that μάλιστα in this passage, instead of differentiating the βιβλία from the μεμβράναι, in fact equates them, at least to the extent of defining or particularizing the general term βιβλία, and that an idiomatic English translation would be 'the books — I mean the parchment notebooks'. (Skeat, 174).

Skeat's suggestion has other implications, notably in 1Ti 4.10, which in the ESV reads:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (1Ti 4.10, ESV)

Skeat discusses this instance of μάλιστα as well:

On my hypothesis this should be rendered 'God, who gives salvation to all men — that is to say, to all who believe in Him'. This in fact gives better sense, since although God is the potential Saviour of all, He can only be the Saviour of those who accept him. (Skeat, 174-175).

As much as my Calvinist leanings like this because it makes this text much easier to deal with, there are problems with Skeat's approach. Vern Poythress provides a critical review of Skeat's postulation in a later edition of JTS.

Both articles are worth reading, particularly when dealing with 1Ti 4.10.

2 Timothy 4.13 reads:

When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. (2Ti 4.13, RSV)

The phrase and above all is from the Greek word μάλιστα, typically translated as especially. The word μάλιστα is used elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles, perhaps most prominently in 1Ti 4.10:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (1Ti 4.10, RSV)

In 1979, T.C. Skeat published an article in the Journal of Theological Studies that proposed a new sense of μάλιστα; that of that is or namely. This has potential soteriological consequences in the translation of 1Ti 4.10. Skeat's suggestion has made its way into commentaries and articles having to do with these verses.

In 2002, Vern Poythress published a response to Skeat's article, in JTS, titled The Meaning of μάλιστα in 2Ti 4.13 and Related Verses.

I just came across this article in the online version of Biblica. The summary is as follows:

The distinctive way of honoring gods or God was to celebrate what is unique about them, that is, praise of persons who were the "first", "only", or "one of a few" to do something. Rhetoric from Aristotle to Quintilian expounded the theory of "uniqueness", which the authors of Greek hymns and prayers employed. One finds a Semitic counterpart in the "principle of incomparability" describing Israelite kings. "Uniqueness" pervades the New Testament, especially its doxologies. In them, "uniqueness" was richly expressed in rhetorical mode, as well as by predicates of negative theology which elevated the deity above those praising.

The article is available as HTML or PDF.

This final article in the Trinity Journal dialogue between Moo and Philip B. Payne. Payne's previous article discusses criticisms of Moo's interpretation of 1Ti 2.11-15. Moo directly responds to Payne's criticisms. Regarding Moo's general approach in this response, he writes:

I will say at the outset that I remain convinced that the general interpretation of the passage which I set out in my article is correct. Many of Payne's criticisms pertain to minor matters which hardly affect the over-all interpretation. Others would certainly critically weaken my general interpretation; but, interestingly, I find these to be the least acceptable of his alternative suggestions. Payne's criticisms fall essentially into three areas: exegetical points; the role of women in the NT church generally; and the situation in the Ephesian church. These basic areas provide the outline of my reply. As much as possible I will follow the order of Payne;s criticisms, so that the reader can more readily evaluate the conflicting opinions. I also encourage the reader to become familiar with the argument of the original article.

The interpretation of 1Ti 2.11-15 is a difficult issue. The forthright dialogue between Moo and Payne on the topic is helpful if only to get a glimpse at how these two perspectives of interpretation view each other; how they view the strengths and weaknesses of the alternate interpretation.

This article is Philip B. Payne's response to the Douglas J. Moo article on the topic of 1Ti 2.11-15. Payne disagrees with Moo's conclusions, offering explanation of points where he disagrees. Payne discusses the approach of his article:

Our response will consider, first, exegetical weaknesses, and second, logical weaknesses in Moo's evaluation of the meaning and significance of 1Ti 2.11-15. Third, we will examine more closely the situation in the Ephesian church which 1 Timothy addressed. Finally, we will examine whether Paul intended 1Ti 2.12 as a universal prohibition of women teaching or having authority over men.

Note that Moo does offer a response to Payne's criticisms in a subsequent Trinity Journal article.

This is Douglas J. Moo's often-cited Trinity Journal article on 1Ti 2.11-15. Notable due to the ensuing published dialogue between Moo and Philip B. Payne, this article conveys Moo's perspective on this difficult passage. His approach is described thusly:

As an organizing method, the study will be divided into two general stages. In the first, I will attempt to determine the “meaning” of the text; that which Paul sought to communicate to Timothy in the setting of First Century Ephesus. In the second stage, the crucial question of “significance” will be investigated: to what extent is Paul’s instruction applicable to the contemporary church? While these two questions are distinguishable, they must not be regarded as separate: the exegetical conclusions directly and importantly influence the question of normativeness.

The entire interchange between Moo and Payne is well worth reading, in order of publication.