[posted to GThomas Yahoogroup June 26, 2015]

On Facebook, Geoffrey Smith asked Andrew B. whether we're "any closer
to knowing who forged [this fragment]". Perhaps surprisingly, I believe
we are, but that we're unlikely to get there. On Sept 18, 2012, the day that
Karen King announced the fragment, Smithsonian.com had an inside story
by Arial Sabar. In a little-noticed comment, Sabar mentioned that King had
received an email from the collector in July 2010 which included "an unsigned
translation with the bombshell phrase, 'Jesus said this to them: My wife ...'"
Ironically, the bombshell isn't the words 'my wife', but rather the small word
'this'. Since my interlinear is unique in containing the phrase 'Jesus said
this...' (as opposed to leaving the third word untranslated), whoever was
responsible for the mysterious "unsigned translation" is likely the forger.
But there's a second factor that points to the same conclusion: the word 'je'
('je') that I translated 'this' in such contexts isn't in the fragment at that point.
No Coptic expert would translate the suspect line of the fragment in this
way, only a person leaning heavily on my interlinear (and perhaps in mind
of what he intended to inscribe at one point, but didn't) would do so. There's
your likely culprit. Unfortunately, the embarrassment of the participants and/or
the connivance of the collector with the forger will likely preclude the kind
of post-mortem that might reveal the identity of this person.
 
Mike Grondin
(ref: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-inside-story-of-a-controversial-new-text-about-jesus-41078791/
page 5)