I have been reading a bit about this “gospel”, and how some secular news outlets are actually celebrating that it’s been found to be “authentic”. What they don’t say it’s that even the carbon dating is very inconclusive, and we still don’t know where it comes from.
If you want to check the articles in the Harvard Theological Review, go ahead, click here.
There are two excellent entries that point out that even though the parchment of the “gospel” may seem ancient, it’s calligraphy and Coptic grammar isn’t.
Larry Hurtado is one that points out some of those fallacies, you can see it here.
If you want to read about the fallacies of considering the papyrus ancient, without taking into consideration the ink, read Francis Watson’s piece here.
Thanks to Michael Bird for the links.