He is regarded by numerous scholars as having produced the first New Testament canon which included a gospel, called the Evangelion (or Euangelion), which he either acquired or significantly developed; or even fully wrote.

"[T]here has been a long line of scholars" who, against what the Church Fathers said, claimed "that our canonical Luke forms an enlarged version of a 'Proto-Luke' which was also used by Marcion.

[9] He believes that: "On the whole, the differences between Luke and the Evangelion [i.e. the Gospel of Marcion] resist explanation on ideological grounds, and point instead toward Semler's original suggestion 250 years ago: the two gospels could be alternative versions adapted for primarily Jewish and primarily Gentile readers, respectively.

Under such a scenario, the Evangelion would be transmitted within exactly the wing of emerging Christianity in which we can best situate Marcion’s own religious background".

In his 2014 book Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, Markus Vinzent proposed, based on his interpretation of aspects of Tertullian's Against Marcion (and other works of Tertullian), that the Marcionite Evangelion was first written as a document "for his classroom (without Antitheses and perhaps without Paul's letters)," ie.

[14]: 21–22, 26  In that 2015 book (subsequently published in English), Klinghardt shared the same opinion as BeDuhn and Vinzent on the priority and influence of the Marcionite gospel.

[18] Christopher Hays contends that Klinghardt's 2006 case made a number of philological errors, misunderstood the nature of how Marcion is contended to have redacted Luke, and offered an inconsistent case on how he viewed that Luke had redacted Marcion.

[19] Sebastian Moll has said that all surviving sources say that Marcion is the one who edited Luke, and therefore the burden of proof is on advocates of Marcionite priority to provide the counter-argument.