“While I would like to believe that they meant the earliest copies, I think the wording is more insidious, to deliberately mislead the uninformed that there was something before Paul’s writings that render his false.”
Perhaps. But wouldn’t it be great to have actual writings from just after the resurrection?
I am fascinated by actual writings a fraction of the age of this (alleged) date.
But I'm dubious of what it's value could be to Christianity. There were sects of all sorts and writings of all various types. We wouldn't know the origin or validity of these plates.
So I don't think it would have much effect on the Church, which has its own history and canon, accounts of the resurrection, etc.; though I agree it is a fascinating find if it turns out to be real.