I’m afraid that exegesis is not terribly compelling. First, it makes the critical and unsupported assumption that we know enough of ancient history to make a judgment on the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts (e.g., additional archeological studies may reveal another town in the region of Lake Tiberius by that name). At best, we have an incomplete archeological picture told by scientists who may or may not have a hidden agenda. Second, it assumes that archeological discoveries/evidence are more reliable than the Gospel narratives (i.e., the work of scientists today is just as suspect as the historical accuracy of the evangelist). What we have is an inconsistency between archeological discoveries and the biblical narrative. Over time, one or the other may prove inaccurate or the inconsistency may be cleared up. Third, assuming we have all the archeological evidence of the time period and can conclusively prove that the swine could not have plunged into the lake, there still isn’t necessarily a historical inaccuracy. Consider the footnote in La Bible de Jerusalem: “The town of Gerasa, actually Djerash, is situated more than 50 km from the Lake of Tiberius, which makes the swine episode impossible. It is possible that Mark joined two distinct episodes. According to the first, Jesus would have performed a simple exorcism, in the region of Gerasa. According to the second, Jesus sent the demons into the swine who threw themselves into the lake.” Note that this interpretation doesn’t do prejudice to the historical accuracy of the Gospel narrative; it merely points out that two historically accurate accounts may have been joined here. Finally, no exegesis is complete without incorporation of the Fathers of the Church. I note that patg’s exegesis is conspicuously lacking in that respect.
