Few scholars who believe in Marcion priority:
Christopher Hays, “Marcion vs. Luke: A Response to the Plädoyer of Matthias Klinghardt”, Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und Kunde der Älteren Kirche. 99 (2): 213–232. Moll, Sebastian (2010). The Arch-Heretic Marcion. Mohr Siebeck. pp. 90–102. Dieter Roth, “Marcion’s Gospel and the History of Early Christianity: The Devil is in the (Reconstructed) Details”, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity. 99 (21): 25–40. There are also several book reviews by scholars who have been unconvinced by the theories. I don’t know of any responses to any of the above publications by Marcionite priority proponents. There’s also this paper: “Marcion and the Dating of Mark and the Synoptic Gospels” by Evie-Marie Becker & Markus Vinzent
Jason BeDuhn (2017) ‘New Studies of Marcion’s Evangelion’ Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity 21(1): 4-24
Abstract
Several recent publications have brought renewed vigor to the study of Marcion’s gospel text, the Evangelion, three of which are reviewed here, representing a variety of approaches and conclusions. Significant advances over Harnack’s century-old reconstruction have been achieved, with important ramifications for text, source, and redaction criticism, as well as the history of canon. Yet, the scholarship represented here remains attached to anachronistic notions of authorship that do not give due regard to the cultic setting in which gospels were used, and the resulting fluidity of text that makes a quest for a specific authorial moment and a single original text difficult to fulfil.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/zac-2017-0001/html
Dieter Roth (2017) ‘Marcion’s Gospel and the History of Early Christianity: The Devil is in the (Reconstructed) Details’ Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity 21(1): 25–40
Abstract
The significance of Marcion’s Gospel in understanding the history of early Christianity has often been noted; however, a major challenge in research on Marcion’s Gospel as it relates to numerous issues (e. g., the gospel genre itself, the textual history of Luke , the relationship between Marcion’s Gospel and Luke, the Synoptic Problem, etc.) is that since no copies of Marcion’s Gospel are extant, the text must be reconstructed.
This article offers a critical appraisal of specific issues related to the reconstruction of Marcion’s Gospel in recent scholarship on Marcion and his texts by Jason BeDuhn, Markus Vinzent, Matthias Klinghardt, and Judith Lieu. Particular attention is given to the variety of challenges confronting the academic study of this text, the manner in which potentially problematic reconstructions contribute to the place one ascribes to Marcion’s Gospel in the history of early Christianity, and the variety of points that must be discussed and debated further in order to advance research on Marcion’s Gospel. Only then is it possible to gain a better understanding of the Gospels, including Marcion’s Gospel, in the second century and in the history of early Christianity.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/zac-2017-0002/html
Daniel A. Smith (2017)’Marcion’s Gospel and the Resurrected Jesus of Canonical Luke 24′ Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity 21(1): 41-62
Abstract
New reconstructions of Marcion’s Gospel , which are considerably more sophisticated than past attempts, allow more certainty when comparing Marcion’s text with canonical Luke. This essay examines the presentations of the resurrected Jesus in canonical Luke and Marcion’s Gospel, with a particular focus on the text-critical problems in Luke 24 (especially the shorter Western readings) and on the distinctive ways the two texts theorize Jesus’ risen bodily presence (especially the terms φάντασμα and πνεῦμα, and σάρξ and ὀστέα). Parallel evidence from the letters of Ignatius indicates that the emphasis on touching Jesus, who has risen in a flesh-and-bones body (as in Luke 24:36–43), does not reveal a specifically anti-docetic or anti-Marcionite agenda, but rather was an attempt to restrict apostolic authorization to the Twelve and their successors.
These examinations provide suggestive, though admittedly not conclusive, evidence that Marcion’s Gospel is the earlier text and canonical Luke the later text, particularly given the problems identifying a coherent [alleged] editorial agenda on Marcion’s part (assuming the priority of canonical Luke).
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/zac-2017-0003/html
Ulrich Schmid has an article where he studied seven manuscripts of canonical Luke of ‘the time’ to examines Klinhardt’s claim that the significant level of disparity between what Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Adamantius recounted about Marcion’s gospel is also found in the canonical text tradition of the time: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/zac-2017-0006/html
https://www.peeters-leuven.be/detail.php?search_key=1082886&series_number_str=41&lang=en
The main text for the case for Marcionite priority might be Matthias Klinghardt’s The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, a 2020 English version of his 2015 German-language Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien (which is available as a Kindle edition (and each of the two volumes is available separately, but still in German: volume 1 and volume 2)
Markus Vinzent’s Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels is thorough and good, as is his 2016 Tertullian’s Preface to Marcion’s Gospel (Studia Patristica Supplements, 5) which provides
“a better understanding of both Tertullian’s literary response to Marcion and Marcion’s Antitheses and his Gospel, [and] also [provides] glimpses of what, despite all the rhetoric historically, might have provoked Tertullian’s response, namely more intellectual proximity between the two interlocutors than the-battle-on-the-surface would intimate.”
Klinghardt and Jan Heilmann are editors of a 2018 book, Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2. Jahrhundert (‘The New Testament and its Text in the 2nd Century’), which looks interesting.
Also see
Klinghardt (2017) Marcion’s Gospel & the NT: Catalyst or Consequence? NTS 63(2), pp.318-323
Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity, Volume 21, Issue 1, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gunN_4mfmdA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbJncTsTGw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYTQQR8bncM