I don’t have a dog in this particular fight. The historical interest in early Christianity is of course legitimate and I have read a book or two regarding this area simply out of curiousity.

Stepping back and in the larger scope of things, does this really change much?

Stronger scholarship seems to break both ways - more towards proving Jesus as an actual historical figure (which, however, will still not prove the divinity that is all-important to many). And not proving he is historical probably does not shake faith in this divinity either.

OTOH, this same scholarship also leads into further evidence that early Christianity is basically a splinter cult from a whole spectrum of Judaism cults that existed at that time. So Christianity does not spring up as an exception to a monolithic train of thought - it’s simply a survivor out of an evolutionary “bush” of religious and spiritual thought. Furthermore, doesn’t the same scholarship also generally show the works declared canon to be cherrypicked in order to serve the needs and desires of those those formulating the early church and eventual hierarchies? In other words, even early on things were being chosen in order to build control structures, not simply to espouse a philosophy of behavior.