It appears that you are greatly troubled by the failure to possess the original copy of the Irenaeus work . Since published reputable scholars such as Raymond Brown Fitzmyer and others have noted this fact and after rigorous intellectual scrutiny have accepted its validity, I find your commentary without merit. These academics are published are you? Again, what empirical evidence can you produced to vitiate their arguments? None; that is what I thought. The Burden Of Proof rests with you and your efforts to refute have been found wanting.
The unmitigated audacity in steadfastly holding to such a fragile position is not an efficacious avenue for success. You need to remember that most evidence introduced in courts is circumstantial evidence. You must specifically refute the sources I have provided but you are at a loss to do so. Offering your own self serving testimony is without value.
The only thing that's strange is the fact that you chose to mention in it since it was not part of the topic discussed, but it was an attempt to further downgrade Pagels and Gnostics.
My reasons are simple, not strange: it's hypocritical to talk about Gnostic anti-Semticism (as if it were relevant here), and ignore the fact that anti-Semticsm (indeed Torah burning) was part of the developing "orthodoxy."
I hadn't mentioned Orthodoxy's bent towards anti-Semitism in my post
What's Orthodoxy got to do with the 4th century Church? If you mean, eastern, Greek Fathers, St. John Chrysostom's homilies are a perfect example that anti-Semtism, based on anti-Judaizing agitation, was part of the early Church, East and West.
But, that's not one thing the Gnostics and Christians differed on very much, was it? Which is perhaps why it wasn't one of the topics in the chart. Which is why it was completely uncalled for to be introduced as a topic by you. Why would you introduce something both sides were guilty of in a topic which deals with their differences?
It appears that you are greatly troubled by the failure to possess the original copy of the Irenaeus work
Not greatly troubled, just cognizant that it is not the original and that copying error and developing doctrine had played a significant part in the copying process in those days. In fact, it is impossible to ascertain that the extant copy is the exact true copy of the original and therefore cannot be used with absolute certainty.
Since published reputable scholars such as Raymond Brown Fitzmyer [sic] and others have noted this fact and after rigorous intellectual scrutiny have accepted its validity, I find your commentary without merit
You mean Raymond E. Brown, S.S., and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.? Neither exactly non-partisan authors...
And just how was it established that a copy is an 'exact' and trustworthy replica of the original, having been made 200 years after the original? What sources do you have to offer?
These academics are published are you?
Elaine Pagels is published, yet you question her scholarship. It seems to me you have your own criteria, and being published is just an obfuscation when it suits you. What have you published?
Again, what empirical evidence can you produced to vitiate their arguments? None; that is what I thought
About as much as you have. Besides, I am not making extraoridnary claims of authenticity, when there is sufficient justifiable doubt in a copy, especially when the original doesn't exist...
The Burden Of Proof rests with you and your efforts to refute have been found wanting
The burden of proof about what? Doubt in someone's extraorindary claims? Or proof of the anti-Semtisim in the Church?
One of the problems with the Latin copy from the late 4th century is that Irenaeus refers to Mary as advocata. Your scholarship should tell you that, translated into Greek, it means the Paraclete! In other words, Irenaeus is equating Mary with the Holy Spirit! How 'orthodox' is that?
You must specifically refute the sources I have provided but you are at a loss to do so. Offering your own self serving testimony is without value
All you did was accuse Gnostics of anti-Semitism as if it was something the Church is not guilty of, and mentioned a couple of names without even mentioning specifically the name of the sourse, page and pragraph itself. You call that testimony? More like self-flattery. All in all, you provided zilch and plenty of high-ended condescension.