I cannot understand certain fallacies by people who should know better. Having carried out some research, they fail to verify old wives’ tales and repeat the same mistakes.

Fr Hermann Duncan had a good article (February 9) but confused some issues. He alleges that Christianity in Malta did not spread completely after St Paul’s shipwreck. This goes against all traditions and, if he insists, he must provide some form of proof. The Arab occupation had its effects and it was only after the Norman conquest that Christianity again gained the upper hand.

Many wrongly think the shipwreck took place in the area of St Paul’s islands but, according to many scholars, the only tangible and logical place would be the rocks in Tal-Għażżenin.

The correspondent repeats the fallacy about the name of the zone. In ancient times the area was known as ir-ramla (the sandy bay) because, before being ruined by debris from the building of St Publius Street, there used to be a small sandy beach, as clearly stated in the Acts of the Apostles 27: 39. The name has nothing to do with any Greek and was coined by the few inhabitants to disparage the “rich” summer residents who were considered to be idlers, hence, għażżenin.

Another mistake is about the location of the bonfire. Before Grand Master Alof de Wignacourt, the chapel was situated where the watchtower now stands. The grand master had deemed the site the best strategic location for the tower and moved the chapel to its present location.

At least the correspondent did not confuse a Roman anchor that is irrelevant to this theme. The ship involved in the shipwreck was Egyptian, vide 27; 6, which states it was from Alexandria.