New York Review of Books critics say no. In their review of The Gospel of Judas from Codex Tchacos (National Geographic), Eduard Iricinschi, Lance Jenott, and Philippa Townsend--all Princeton doctoral candidates studying religions of late antiquity--argue:

Scholars have commonly approached such noncanonical texts as the NagHammadi writings by assuming that they presuppose a particularworldview known as Gnosticism. In the newly published edition of theGospel of Judas, Marvin Meyer and Bart Ehrman both use this approach tointerpret the text.

(snip)

None of these beliefs is explicitly set out in so-called Gnostic texts, as Ehrman has freely admitted elsewhere, nor do we have any evidence that the authors of these works consideredthemselves to be "Gnostics," rather than just Christians. Instead, theGnostic credo is the construction of modern scholars, who have compiledit in part by drawing on the polemics of such critics of heresy asIrenaeus, and in part by creating a synthesis of ideas found in thevarious Nag Hammadi writings as well as other texts. Such scholarlycategorizing can, of course, be useful, and there is no doubt thatcertain elements of the tenets of "Gnosticism" can be found in some ofthe Nag Hammadi texts, as well as in the Gospel of Judas itself.However, presupposing a "Gnostic worldview" when approaching thesenon-canonical texts creates several major, and related, problems. Themost obvious is that much gets read into the texts that is not actuallythere. Another is that the differences between the individual textsbecome muted, while their differences from the canonical writings arehighlighted. This has led to a view of the Nag Hammadi texts as a kindof "anti-canon," a mirror image of the New Testament ("Christianityturned on its head" as Ehrman describes Judas), when it is moreproductive to view all these early Christian texts as differingpositions in the same debate, discordant voices in the sameconversation.

Notice the move they make in demystifying "the Gnostic credo" as a "construction of modern scholars." The reviewers grant that these scholars "have compiled it in part by drawing on the polemics of such critics of heresy as Irenaeus, and in part by creating a synthesis of ideas found in the various Nag Hammadi writings as well as other texts." Creating a synthesis.

This characterization gives the impression that the category Gnostic is the brainchild of a polemicist heresy-hunting bishop and a band of modern scholars overeager to find commonality in difference. It seems the reviewers allow that some adbuctive reasoning has taken place, yet they go on to claim that the scholars who worked on the Gospel of Judas presuppose a Gnostic worldview "when approaching these noncanonical texts," which "creates several ...problems."

This is a distraction. The real problem for the critics is that the Nag Hammadi texts (they won't say "Gnostic texts") are now, as a result of this bias, considered "a kind of 'anti-canon,' a mirror image of the New Testament...when it is more productive to view all these early Christian texts as differing positions in the same debate, discordant voices in the same conversation." Productive to what? Read the review and see if you can find out.