Fallacies, if repeated often enough, will eventually sound like the Gospel truth.

The question, or analysis, of St Paul's shipwreck on the Maltese islands crops up every now and then. "Modern" scholars go out of their way to negate any traditional belief and lore. Therefore, the date, the locality and if in fact Paul did come to Malta are constantly being turned upside down.

Clinging to an expression, which to me has doubtful relevance, some claim that the shipwreck occurred in November. Then they automatically deduce that as the prevalent winds in that season are from the south, Paul could only have been shipwrecked in the south of Malta. Apart from this, there are other "dangerous" connotations with this theory.

These same people conveniently enough ignore the quotation from The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 28 verse 11: "We set sail after three months in an Alexandrian ship with the Twins on her figurehead, which had wintered at the Island." This verse is all important. (a) Three months after the shipwreck would mean that if the shipwreck was in November, they set sail in mid-winter, in February, one of the worst months for the deadly gregale. (b) The ship had "wintered", thus it does not make sense that the ship would sail out of the safe haven in Malta half way through winter. If we follow the tradition that Paul was shipwrecked in late January or early February, the three months' stay would amount up to late April or early May, which traditionally is the first "safe" period to cross the tricky Mediterranean Sea. These dates are also confirmed by other ancient writings.

Let us stop this stupidity that is only confusing people. After all, the month and the location are of secondary importance. What is of utmost importance is that St Paul did come to Malta!