What if most of the world's lost ancient texts were discovered?

These two claims seem to be in direct contradiction to one another.

As you rightly say, gnosicism was a quite different religious tradition with quite different roots from Christianity (non-Jewish roots, for a start). There was a lot of interaction and cross fertilization between the two traditions during the first couple of centuries AD, but after that Christianity very deliberately purged itself of all the more overt gnostic elements it had acquired, and gnosticism itself went into a terminal decline. I do not see why further discoveries about the history of gnosticism would be likely to bother present-day Christians one bit.

Well it’s like the history of the New World according to the LDS Church. As time went on, enough evidence piled up to show that the history they received via “divine revelation” is factually wrong. While that might not have shut down the LDS Church, it does at least let the rest of us to be able to give confident answers about whether there’s any merit to the LDS beliefs to anyone on the edge and something pretty hard and undeniable to present them with.

I suspect that things like that just lazily chip away at popular beliefs, without change, for several decades. But then one day someone who everyone trusts and who really doesn’t mean to change anything gets up and points it out in a popular forum, it catches everyone off-guard, and suddenly the whole thing falls apart. For example, if you look at the rate of religiosity in European nations (England, Scandinavea, etc.), the numbers just suddenly fall off one day. Per country, I couldn’t tell you what happened, but it does seem to be that suddenly everyone just sort of shrugged and gave in.

Just a point of clarification (and yes, I registered just to post this), Sage Rat is actually referring to the Nag Hammadi Library (and s/he did use that name name) and not the Dead Sea Scrolls that Trinopus mentioned. NH is the gnostic ones. As far as I know, the DSS are Jewish, and do not contain any identified Christian content (references to Christ, apostles, etc.).

You’re right. Sorry, I had accidentally conflated them in my head.

I believe that the DSS just helped researchers to clarify some translation ambiguities and such.

But are they revolutionary? Again, and I apologize for seeming to harp, but back when they were first big news, it was said that they would change our entire understanding of the era, and would upset all out understanding. But that doesn’t seem to have happened. Aren’t the DSS simply really old copies of texts that are familiar to us from other copies? Or is there really stuff in there that should be knocking the socks off our entire comprehension of history?

The Nag Hammadi texts are fascinating, and certainly revolutionary. But they fit into the category of “apocrypha,” and aren’t threatening. Conventional theologians can call them “fan fiction” and not have to make any meaningful explanation for them.

But the Dead Sea Scrolls seem even less revolutionary. They don’t differ (do they?) from other copies of the same documents. Exodus doesn’t have an eleventh commandment; Isaiah doesn’t say “The Romans of Jupiter will Sack the Temple.” Or even “Behold, a Virgin shall conceive twins.”

From what I have read there were several libraries and several fires.

It would give us a great deal of historical information about cultures that are largely or totally unknown because their records were destroyed. We’d get back all the Maya records the Europeans destroyed in the name of of Christianity, for example, and the records of the cultures annihilated by the Mongols. We’d also get enough information to translate many languages we can’t understand.

I’m just someone with casual interest, but as far as I know the Dead Sea Scrolls are not revolutionary to the general public. I didn’t know they’d ever been claimed to be.

Some books considered canon by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and others, but not by Protestants and not included in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were found.

Sometimes there are differences in the Septuagint (a Hebrew Bible translated into Greek and the earliest physical cop we had until the DSS were found) and Masoretic text (Hebrew, considered authoritative to Jews, earliest surviving copies are middle ages) so there was some argument as to which was more correct/authentic. Among bits that are distinctive, the DSS were mostly pre-Masoretic, but some were pre-Septuagint, and some were even pre-Samaritan-bible style. In particular, the book of Jeremiah is significantly different in Septuagint and Masoretic texts - and they found both versions (essentially, not identically) among the DSS. There are a lot of small differences some quite significant ones between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts, and there have sometimes been claims that one version was horribly corrupt, but the DSS show that at least precursors to both versions of some of the works were in use among Jews at that time. Does indicate that canonization/final structure of the Tanakh wasn’t finalized at this time.

Certainly, I think they’re less interesting to the (American, at least) population as a whole because they aren’t about Jesus and many Christians (or perhaps cultural Christians?) these days don’t care about much beyond the Gospels (and only them in broad strokes).

There are a lot of non-biblical books in the DSS that tell us some of the beliefs of the people that collected them, but that’s not in mainstream interest.

Also, it took a long time for the material to be published and translation was only allowed by a small group and only in 1991 (45 years after the initial discovery) were the last of them published.

My impression, as a layperson, is that the DSS are useful/informative within the academic community and did change some of the long-held beliefs but that those were of a nature not interesting or important or significant to the non-Jewish, non-academic, average person-on-the-street in the west who probably has never heard the words “Masoretic” or “Septuagint” (I hadn’t until after college when I came across them while reading material on the Old Testament).

There was a lot of hype early on. I’m thinking now that it was just pressmanship and headline grabbing. There were also a lot of Urban Legends that the Vatican, or Jewish conclaves, were delaying any public release of the contents, because they would be so damaging.

Good one.

That’s way past 500 AD

That alone would keep scholars busy for ages.

This is correct. The library was burned during the civil war and an unknown number of texts were moved to the Serapaeum. This building was burned again during an attack by the emperor Aurelian in the early 270s, and it was burned for real in 391. And once more for good measure during the Arab invasion of Alexandria.

New texts from Egypt are published all the time. They are often literary fragments, works of unknown authors, and documentary texts from the daily lives of people and routine economic and political transactions. If someone found a trove of everything, I’d have enough interesting work to keep my busy for ten lifetimes.

The world has been waiting with bated breath for 10,000 year old fart jokes.

It would be cool if they found some ancient manuscript and it would mention Atlantis, alien visitors, or some other off things. Maybe maps to buried treasure.

Yes, as I said, there are lots of stories about fires in Roman Alexandria, but little or no evidence (such as written accounts from around the supposed time) to back them up. There were two libraries, probably, during its heyday, or two locations where the books were kept and available.

nm

We are very fortunate to have any written documents from ancient times.

There isn’t a lot of historiography concerning Alexandria at any time. Almost no papyri survive due to the climate. Written history for the reign of Aurelian is spotty at best anywhere. And if there was a fire, well, we wouldn’t expect to see many documents that attest to it surviving. So there isn’t much warrant to doubt the usual historical sources that testify to the big fires. If we don’t believe that, then we can’t believe very much of anything from Roman history.

Lots of new conspiracy theories about what They aren’t willing to tell us about what’s been revealed by the ancient sages.

Those claims are so funny. Usually when I try to tell people what’s been revealed by the ancient sages, they want to die of boredom. I would tell people that the documents contained the secret to immortality if I thought it would get people interested.

Clearly you’re not thinking about your career with a sufficiently entrepreneurial attitude.