Yes, let’s hear from the man himself – which should hopefully be soon.
Just one brief note about authenticity, to add to what Prof. Nikolaev has already said. I’ve never tried, of course, but I don’t think faking an ancient papyrus would be quite as easy as Prof Walsh suggests. You would need not only a piece of ancient papyrus, but one so well-preserved – with a surface so intact, smooth, and supple – as to be capable of being written on just as though it were new. Writing with a reed pen on a rugged, dry, dusty surface that has been buried in sand for some eighteen centuries is physically not the same as writing on the clean, new thing; it would take a very good craftsman indeed to perform the task without leaving traces of the counterfeiture. In this regard, I think that credibly faking writing on a potsherd – or an equally resistant surface, perhaps even parchment – would be rather easier than on a papyrus.
In short, although questions about provenance must be answered, they are not necessarily strictly related to the question of the authenticity. A clear provenance would remove doubt from the start, of course, but even without provenance – as is the case for several unprovenanced papyri that legally entered private and public collections in the early decades of the twentieth century – the authenticity should be able to be established on the balance of probability judging from the papyrus itself.
(I should point out that am making a general point here; for all I know, it may well be the case that hints of counterfeiture do exist on the papyrus itself in this specific case. Only further research on the original can establish that – hoping that it does not disappear from the radar after publication, as a privately-owned item is unfortunately at risk of doing.)