The more technical discussion can be found here. Bernhard's critique is devastating.
24 hours after Karen King dropped this amid a media circus, scholars were lined up to take a look at it and very early on identified the probability of a modern forgery, largely based off of the botched syntax. This latest development appears as King is making last ditch efforts to salvage the text - this time releasing the original translation provided to her by the owner (who she still refuses to provide many concrete details on).
Not to beat a dead horse, but previous to this Karen King had the reputation of avoiding the circus associated with contemporary Gnostic studies. She occasionally made a few revisionist claims and appeared to argue that Gnosticism was more mainstream in ancient Christianity than most historians would accept, but she stayed away from the circus.
For whatever reason, she couldn't stay away from this suspect papyrus. One can only speculate why, and it would perhaps not be fair to do so.
King's reputation has taken a pounding because of this one. I don't see where she can go from here to save what remains of her reputation. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why she is so wedded to this scrap and why she appears unable to pull herself back from the mess and disengage.