I have no problem with your criticism of Elaine Pagels, and her agenda, but let's not try to diminish the anti-Semitism of the Church as well, because then your criticism of her questionable schoalrhsips becomes equally questionable.
Nothing Irenaeus wrote can be taken for granted since the oldest surviving copy of his complete works is a later 4th century Latin copy. So, using Irenaeus to prove or disprove anything is equally dubious. A scholar should know that. That Elaine Pagels doesn't is not surprising.
My critique of Pagel’s casual dismissal of Gnostic anti Semitism has no relevancy to any such prejudices exhibited by institutional churches. It is an entirely discrete matter. Any attempt to conjoin the two is a project of flawed interpretation. As for the common complaint the the “Pure†Gnostic sources have been destroyed and we are forced to rely on the adversaries of the Gnostics, this complaint has been registered and found wanting by many scholars. To mention just one common refutation of your comment, Phillip Jenkins in his work the “Hidden Gospels†mentions this banal criticism and replies that the writing of Irenaeus was one of the most comprehensive polemics on this subject. Jenkins states that while Irenaeus writings made no pretense at objectivity, they were richly informative about the core ideas of various Gnostic movements and as more heretical texts have been found scholars can see that the early church fathers were quoting their enemies opinions quite fully and accurately . Orthodox writers plausibly felt that the views they were quoting were so contorted and ludicrous that the Gnostics were best condemned out of their own mouths. Given judgments rendered on this subject by present day scholars, and absent the introduction of empirical evidence to refute the his credibility of Irenaeus , your contentions must be summarily dismissed as having no substantive basis.