A reader writes:

"It appears genuine" - really? This is a very creative way of saying something that's technically true while avoiding the actual issue. Yes, it appears to be a 4th-century Coptic Christian document, perhaps from an alternative Gospel. However, there are dozens of similar alternative Gospels, from the one written by Jesus's brother to the one that makes Judas out to be the hero of Gnosis. Why would this one have any greater claim to fact than those other documents, written hundreds of years after Jesus' death?

It has no greater claim at all. It doesn't tell us much except that some fourth century Christians thought Jesus was married. Another gets bent out of shape:

That's a legitimately interesting discovery that you posted to earlier. But the way you tossed in that this find "greets the fundamentalist world and the Vatican" - as though the pope has to explain this away, or else the jig is up! - was such a dilettantish and hackish overreaction that I had to respond. Where to start?