The scholars quoted in this post demonstrate caution about the fragment's possible fraudulence. Who can blame them? It is lack of caution that caused this story to unfold the way it has. In my posts on this topic, I did my best to be cautious. But, with just a bit of journalistic rigor, Marrapodi could have found a few well-respected scholars who might have given a more informed answer about the fragment. Indeed, we have a few preliminary arguments; for example, and for example.
Moreover, it should be made clear that ink can be mixed for the purpose of cheating the standard tests. It will not surprise anyone familiar with this process to learn that the ink tests for this fragment come back inconclusive. If so, where are we left? I would argue that we are not "left where we started", but we are left with the compelling arguments in support of fraud. So this CNN post does not report "the latest", it suggests that most scholars don't really have an opinion. Not the case.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not threatened in the least by the possible marriage of Jesus. (1) We already have the Gospel of Philip which is similarly provocative - and no one doubts that this text is ancient, perhaps dating to the second or third century. (2) We know almost nothing about Jesus' life before he began his public ministry. Moreover, I do not think it is sinful or scandalous to be married. Jesus scholars should remain open to this possibility (I discuss this topic further in this book). I am not concerned with what this fragment says about Jesus and Mary. My concern here is with the document itself, and I'm not sure that "further testing" will provide an definitive proof. It could be that the best arguments in support of fraud have already been leveled.