Fallacies, if repeated often enough, will eventually sound like 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 whether Paul did in fact come to Malta are constantly being turned upside down.

Some claim 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. There are other ‘dangerous’ connotations about this theory too.

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.

Three months after the shipwreck, thus, if the shipwreck was in November they set sail in mid-winter, February, one of the worse months for the deadly gregale.

The ship had “wintered” and so it does not make sense that the ship would sail out of the safe havens in Malta half way through winter.

If we follow the tradition that Paul was shipwrecked in late January or early February, the three-month stay would lead 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 andthe location are of second-ary importance.

What is of the utmost importance is that St Paul did come to Malta.