Answer

There has long been a dispute about this, with arguments in both directions. So what? In my view, this proves very little, as is usually the case in these fields. So it means there were other early versions of the Bible? Why is that interesting? What kind of blow do you see here? Not even a light graze on the wing.
I won’t get into the reliability of claims about whether there were or weren’t sects, when and where, or of these datings. We’ve already seen categorical statements in these fields collapse all at once. A collection of people with an agenda presenting hypotheses and interpretations as though they were facts. Just a few days ago I heard from one archaeologist that Finkelstein explains that the terraces on Mount Ebal (next to the altar) are Turkish terraces from a few hundred years ago. The wonders of agenda-driven scholarship.
But even if I ignore all of that, and assume everything is correct. Solid truth carved in stone. Exact science. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing. It only means that there were people whose text got corrupted, and maybe our text is also a bit corrupted (by the way, this is something that also appears in halakhic decisors, and there is really nothing to get excited about. The Rema writes that here too one operates according to the laws of majority and presumptive status).