[redleghunter]

The Harvard Theological Review is also publishing a rebuttal to King's findings today, authored by Brown University professor Leo Depuydt. Depuydt maintains that there was never any need to conduct tests on the fragment, because it includes "gross grammatical errors" and its text matches writings from another early Christian text discovered in 1945. According to him, the document is so blatantly fake that it "seems ripe for a Monty Python sketch." Depuydt also dismissed King's claims that the fragment's ink doesn't match the carbon inks used today, telling the New York Times: "An undergraduate student with one semester of Coptic can make a reed pen and start drawing lines."

Well there you have it...Why then publish an article on an already refuted document. A document no less they dated to over 600-900 years after Christ's death and resurrection.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Well there you have it...Why then publish an article on an already refuted document. A document no less they dated to over 600-900 years after Christ's death and resurrection."

As a couple of others pointed out, it's because the press cannot allow Easter to pass without administering its annual dose of skepticism and doubt. Unlike Ramadan, "the sacred month of Islam," when the press becomes dutifully reverential.