It just made me wonder about all those shows on the History Channel when they go out and “discover” some Biblical site or explain some Biblical occurrence through volcanic activity or serendipitous earthquake or whatever and because we find those things, it’s supposed to increase our faith (or just give us faith) that the things that happened in the Bible actually happened.
Well, here we have another holy site from another religion where something actually maybe happened.
Will we see Greek-Mythology-archaeologists out there giving interviews to the History Channel about how this proves the inerrancy of those myths?
I don’t mean to be snarky. I just wonder if that really is persuasive to people.
Tiny Cat Pants 
wouldn’t they have to be pretty confused Greek-mythologists, to take a cave in Rome that was prominently mentioned in the Roman mythos as any support for the Greek pantheon?
if anything, we need to convert to the cult of Jupiter. or start erecting altars to our respective ancestors in our homes, or something.
Ha, good catch, Nomen. Apparently I need some coffee or something before I start getting all philosophical about the Romans.
But I leave the post as it is as a testament to my idiocy. I can only hope that trolls construct a temple over it in 100 years!
To be fair, the article makes clear that archaeologists don’t think they’ve discovered the cave where the wolf suckled the twins; they think they’ve discovered the Lupercale, which the Romans believed was the cave where etc. It’s as if archaeologists from the future were to some day discover the Church of the Holy Sepulcher: announcing that discovery would make no statement about the truth value of the idea that Jesus was buried there.
I’d like to see a bunch of pictures, though: if they’re right about what it is, that’s an ooooold site.