No. I spoke in Oxford the day before, but only to students and faculty at one of the colleges. The rest of my trip was purely R&R.

That wasn’t true until recently. There were improbabilities also on the forgery hypothesis (forgers would more likely have attempted Greek to market the scrap as earlier; would more likely have made the text clear rather than ambiguous; the forgery is in most respects physically excellent; etc.). And the fact that it had words shared by GThom is not sufficient because of the danger of the multiple comparisons fallacy (of all Coptic texts one could find such a match with given such a small scrap, what are the odds one will match by accident? Probably not as low as you think). However, a new analysis just came out that shows features that are extremely improbable on any other hypothesis but forgery (defenders of authenticity have not yet responded to that evidence, however; nor have the chemical tests come back; but I think the odds of authenticity are pretty low at this point). I plan to blog on that later this week.

Bayes’s theory surely made it a forgery, even before the spelling mistake was discovered!

Prob (only word mentioned was “wife”)
Prob (other words copied were exactly in Gospel of Thomas) etc. etc.

I do indeed adjust my tenor to suit the venue.