There have been, to some extent, for Confucianism, though it is not completely comparable to what happened in Europe during the Renaissance insofar as ancient Chinese texts were written in a Classical Chinese that was archaic but that has never ceased to be taught to the scholars so it was not a strange language to them, and in the case of Confucianism (as it is not true for Buddhism for example) there were no classical works written in a language that was not classical Chinese (thus there was no real need, for example, to translate some texts from, say, Mongol to Classical Chinese, like there was a need, in Europe, to translate texts from Greek or Arabic to Latin, or to vernacular, etc.).

Still, translation issue aside, there were periods where ancient Classical texts were rediscussed by some Confucians who considered that the Confucian before them were wrong. This is, for example, the case of Zhu Xi, one of the founder of what is now called "Neo-Confucianism", who lived during the Song Dynasty and more or less considered that most of the Confucianism that happened during the 1rst millenium was wrong (an opinion inherited from the Cheng brothers), by establishing a new Confucian transmission line : Confucius, Mencius, Zhou Dunyi, Cheng Yi, Cheng Hao, Zhang Zai, and himself of course. Mencius lived during the 4th century B.C. while Zhou Dunyi lived in the 11th century A.C., so you can clearly see that Zhu Xi had a very bad opinion of all things that happened between Mencius and roughly the beginning of the second millenium. Interestingly enough he left out thinkers that were considered very important before him such as Xun Zi (a famous opponent of Mengzi who is seeing a revival nowadays by the way) or Dong Zhongshu (major Han era confucianist).

With this new orthodox lineage came an orthodox booklist. Pre-Zhu Xi Confucianism had a tendency to focus a lot the Five Classics (Classic of Poetry, Classic of Document, Classic of Rites, Yi Jing, Spring and Autumn Annals) compared to other books such as Confucius' Annalects (that was of course studied a lot too, do not get me wrong, what would be the point of Confucianism if it did not study Confucianism). Zhu Xi sort of reverted it this by focusing on what he calls the "4 books" (Annalects, Doctrine of the Mean, Great Learning, Mencius) which, to him, were representative of the Confucian orthodoxy. It is as interesting for what it includes as for what it leaves out (for example, as said earlier, it includes Mencius but doesn't mention Xun Zi). Confucian exams as they were envisaged by Zhu Xi would focus first and foremost on the 4 books (and Zhu Xi's vast commentaries of these) and not on the 5 classics. An imperial decree in 1313 made it so, and until the end of Qing China Imperial exams were based off the 4 books and Zhu Xi's commentaries.

So what we get from Zhu Xi is a sort of "rediscovery" of the 4 books put on the spotlight, and with them a vast ammount of new commentaries and a new official transmission of Confucianism, and this rediscussion is, I suppose, can be, to some extent, compared to the Renaissance.

There was another type of "Renaissance" in Confucianism during the early Qing era (Han learning) that can also be compared to the European Renaissance insofar as it had an important focus on philology and getting back to the original texts and their original meaning, thinking that Song era Confucianists (of course, the most proeminent being Zhu Xi) corrupted the original meaning of Confucianism by adding to it Taoist and Buddhist influences that were not there and should not be there. One of the leading Han learning scholar was Dai Zhen, whose most famous work was a philological analysis of the Mencius that aimed to find back the original meaning of the words and expressions used in it, free of any outside influence that would corrupt the text. Still, I am far less familiar with Qing philosophy, so I don't want to get too much into it lest I may write something inaccurate.

No, for the simple reason that there was no comparable period of loss which would allow for the "recovery" of ancient texts. Texts containing authentic material dating back as far as the Western Zhou (1046-771 BC), including the Book of Changes, Book of Documents, and Classic of Poetry, were staples of Chinese education up until the abolition of the imperial civil service examinations in 1905. A huge corpus of works from the Eastern Zhou also enjoyed an uninterrupted transmission to the present day, including historical records like the Spring and Autumn Annals, military treatises like Sunzi's Art of War, and a large body of philosophical and political tracts from the so-called Hundred Schools of Thought. Although we do know of some lost or incomplete works, on the whole the Chinese tradition did not experience as sharp of a break as the post-Roman Western tradition did and so there was no comparable period of rediscovery and reassessment.

Also worth noting is that the written Classical Chinese of the Zhou, Qin and Han periods was taken by later Chinese scholars as the basis of Literary Chinese or wenyanwen, which was only widely replaced by written Vernacular Chinese or baihuawen in the 20th century. So while spoken Chinese diverged into numerous, mutually-unintelligible forms over the centuries, Literary Chinese functioned as a written lingua franca which linked contemporary Chinese dialect groups to each other, and to the Classics. For this reason, even modern editions of classical works are "untranslated," left in the original Classical Chinese but with explanatory footnotes in modern Chinese.

The closest possible analogue would be the discovery and translation of Shang oracle bones beginning in the 20th century, although these are divination records and not detailed texts.