In all fairness, the papyrus in question was dated to the 4th century, so roughly 300-something years after the events in question. One single fragment without a whole lot of context to go along with it. We've got thousands of older scrolls and fragments of scripture from the 2nd and 3rd centuries that corroborate one another so consistently that it makes the New Testament one of the most well preserved ancient texts in existence. Under the weight of all that other documentation, this one fragment's claim is a bit dubious.
If this was relating to any other ancient document, say Euclid's Elements, everyone including historians would be pretty skeptical about one fragment among thousands deviating from the rest, and rightly so.
So one scroll from 300 years later comes out and has some incomplete hints of something odd; that isn't terribly surprising. There are probably more out there, especially given what we know about the gnostics, Marcionism and other sects that split off from the church and made up their own doctrine.
[shrugs] It sounds interesting from a historical point of view, but we already knew there were a lot of different factions that split off from what was left of the 1st century church by that point in history.
