Gashwin Gomes takes a look at an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education examining new views of gnosticism; namely the conviction among some that "gnosticism" as a category should be abandoned.

(I assume these scholarly advocates are only speaking about the Christian versions of gnosticism. But of course.)

In an interview, Ms. King expands on her theory. "When you map out the similarities rather than the differences between the two sides — or what Irenaeus says are the differences — the territory of similarity is huge," she says. "Both work with this notion of humanity created in the image and likeness of God — and the need for a restoration of that. They both see Christ as the revealer figure, with the body as the place where the struggle takes place. They both have views at the end where humanity is divided into three groups depending on how you do."

Ms. Pagels agrees that "if we drop the invented terms, what we have is many different types of early Christianity. When I used the title The Gnostic Gospels, I assumed that they were all Gnostic. Now I would say that these are other Christianities. … It’s difficult for all of us who were raised the way we were to get rid of the assumptions. The act of shedding assumptions is only done one by one, and with great difficulty."

Gashwin has good comments, including on the final paragraph which (sigh) invites readers intrigued by DVC to read further. As if anything DVC says about anything (even gnosticism) is accurate or a reasonable jumping-off point.