The ArtDaily article linked very early in this thread gives a fairly complete story on the "provenance" of this painting. The original loan to the NG was specifically for them to evaluate whether it was indeed a copy, as was then believed. They spent considerable time doing so, and their investigation included Xray examination which, they say, showed underlying work (probably sketch/layout stuff) that indeed was typical of Raphael. They concluded, and reported widely, that their determination was that the painting is authentic.

Anyone doubting the authenticity of this painting has had several years to contest their conclusion. Quite obviously, it was accepted by the Getty.

In the art world, as elsewhere, "scandalmongering" is a persistent tradition. I think it's safe to dismiss this guy who's screaming "fake." This story has already been unfolded, read, filed, and put away with respect to his claims.

John