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.
What kind of a nonsense is that? How is Gnostic anti-Semitism different form the Church's anti-Semtism?
It is an entirely discrete matter. It is an entirely discrete matter. Any attempt to conjoin the two is a project of flawed interpretation.
Anti-Semtism is just that. Both groups engaged in it, even if for different reasons, and accusing one of it while the other side is equally guilty of it is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
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
I am sure, and I can guess which ones.
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
I repeat: the oldest copy of Irenaeus' complete works is a late 4th century Latin copy. There is no original Greek. One can't take copies to be originals. Ancient copying methods and styles were prone to errors and redact ions to keep up with evolving doctrines. Neither you nor Philip Jenkins have any proof that what we have from Irenaeus is indeed what Irenaeus wrote. You an only say that a later copy of his work says such and such...
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
Which early Church Fathers outside of Irenaeus? Even using the term "heresy" would be an oxymoron given than no set doctrine or canon existed in the Church as a whole until the 4th century. There were groups within the heterodox Christian movement that has serious disagreements with each other theologically and canonically.
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
You have the nerve to talk about empirical evidence when the only evidence you rely on is a copy of Irenaeus' work 200 years later? You better summarily dismiss yourself if you think this is "evidence." The only thing we can conclude from the preserved Irenaeus' works is to determine which faction of the heterodox Christian amalgam became dominant, namely the one that calls itself (naturally) orthodox.