I am absolutely certain the Marcionite form is not the earliest form. My reasons are explained here, in details: http://historical-jesus.info/73.html. But I already sketched some of the main points in an earlier post. Did you read them?If you do not accept the Marcionite text as an earlier form, which I think is an extremely weak position, then these things become "assumptions." But I challenge any claiming they are not earlier forms to explain the vocabulary differences between the attested "Marcionite" form of Paul and the Canonical form. This is only one of the arguments for that being earlier.
What difference of vocabulary? Anyway these differences can come from Marcion' rewriting his Pauline Corpus from the canonicals, rather than the opposite.
There is no attested form of the Marcionite Pauline Corpus we know about, only parts that has been recorded, mostly in the writings of Tertullian & Epiphanius. For the majority of the epistle texts in Marcion's version, there is no attestation. Please refer to Ben's extensive study: viewtopic.php?t=1837If the text is not attested in the "Marcionite" form (which I argue they simply preserved, by dropping out of the main stream and having their own churches, so didn't have the same textual development and scriptural additions, which even the Gnostics had by remaining in the main body), which is what I am informing you, then if you accepted the earlier form, you have to demonstrate that the unattested text is consistent with the attested text in the ten letter form to claim it is part of the early strata.
As for consistency, Marcion's version of his gospels & epistles, according to specifics in Tertullian & Epiphanius' writings, looks very much as a truncated version of the canonicals, rather than the canonicals resulting from additions to Marcion's version.
1 Timothy was not written by Paul but generations after him.That consistency has to include the vocabulary, the points of theology, the voice of the writer (can't be switching from "I' to "we" for example), and the focus. I would also add that the character has to be maintained. Paul, for example is a command figure who accepts no caveats to his authority in the attested text (e.g. in the attested earlier form of 1 Corinthians 5:5 Paul says he delivered up this one to Satan, which 1 Timothy 1:20 borrowed for different purposes, but in the canonical text Paul asks the locals to deliver this one to Satan, a more passive Paul, typical of the catholic revision).
What theology? Marcion's gospel and epistles, as far as we know, do not expound Marcionite's theology & christology. The deletions he made just allow them. If Marcion created these epistles, we would expect to see in them some positive support for his teachings.
And where would be attested that no-switching of "I" to "we" in Marcion's version as compared to the switching in corresponding passages in the canonicals?
I responded to the challenge. I think you have "an extremely weak position", "then these things become "assumptions".Bernard, that is the challenge for you. To show these passages which are not attested, and which conflict with the theology are in fact part of the first layer. Until you do that you are attempting to compare apples to oranges.