"Christianity is like the other canonical religions, Miss Shea. Whether it's the Qur’an, Book of Mormon, Dianetics, Mein Kampf, or in this case, the New Testament, they're all defined by their texts. If we should find the Quelle, a fresh record of what Jesus said and did, earwitness accounts and unaltered quotations lost for nineteen centuries and more factual than the Bible? … It will shake their foundations and they'll attack. - Professor Parkinson, p.16
The professor thinks that the discovery of the lost writings of Saint Papias would "shake the churches' foundations and that they'd forcefully react. First thoughts might agree. He's correct that the canonical (accepted) texts are at the churches' core, and as happened when the Dead Sea Scrolls, Codex Siniaticus, and Nag Hamadi documents were published, such a find would generate controversy. But with what result? The discovery of Sinaiticus revealed substantive alterations in original scripture including a new ending to the gospel of Mark and the codices found at Nag Hamadi made known several omitted gospels, but like Congressman Earl Landgrebe who objected to proof of President Nixon's misdeeds by shouting "Don't confuse me with the facts," the great bureaucracies and their faithful masses ignored the revelations and marched on, unconfused.
What do you think? Would another expose of the New Testament be rationally considered or intentionally disregarded? How would you consider the discovery of valid scriptures at odds with the modern New Testament?