Skip to main contentAccessibility feedback

6 ‘Biblical’ Myths Debunked

All well-meaning, all thought-provoking, all wrong.

There are six “truths” I’ve been asked about many times. People think I’ve never heard these “truths” before and attempt to explain them to me—though I know them all to be myths.

In each case, there is no historical, biblical or actual basis to substantiate any of them. Someone started teaching them by finding an assertion on the internet or in a book or magazine. The pious speculation gets picked up by teachers or bloggers with good intentions, and as the old saying goes, “if something is said often enough, it becomes true.”

So we will address each of these myths briefly and set the record straight.

1. Shepherds break the leg of the wandering lamb.

The first popular myth is that shepherds in the Middle East break the leg of a wandering lamb to keep it close. Being close to the shepherd during its early years makes the lamb affectionate, and a special bond is built between the shepherd and the lamb so that after the leg is healed, it never wanders away again.

The assertion is that Jesus is a good shepherd, and he too would break the proverbial leg of his followers to keep them from straying.

However, this does not happen. There are no traditions or incidents known of it happening. In fact, there are a good number of reasons why it would not happen. How will the lamb nurse from its mother if the leg is broken? Having been raised on a farm, I can testify that an animal needs its legs to maneuver around the mother to bump and push on the udder and latch on for the milk.

I’ve been told that this leg breakage was in a book or books about shepherds and Psalm 23. I own those books, and it is not contained in them. I also own a book entitled The Perfect Shepherd, written by John Avis, who lived among the shepherds in the Middle East. He debunks this myth of the broken leg (82-83).

Though it may sound profound, and pious lessons can be drawn from it, it also portrays God in a capricious manner. It is an urban legend of recent origin, and it simply is not true—it is a manufactured tale.

2. The eye of a needle” is a gate, not a needle.

Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (Matt. 19:24).

It is common for preachers and writers to say that Jesus meant not an actual needle, but a supposed gate, called the Eye of a Needle, too small for the camel to pass through, especially with his load. The story is lovely for preaching because it graphically explains how a camel cannot get through the small door to enter a city with his load of merchandise. The camel driver has to remove everything from the camel’s back so it can stoop down and wiggle through the small gate without its load. Thus, we have to get rid of worldly possessions to enter the kingdom of God.

After researching this, I’ve concluded that there is no historical, written, or archaeological evidence that there was ever such a gate. In fact, scholars and commentators debunk the idea. The camel was the largest thing people usually saw and the eye of the needle the smallest; therefore, it made an excellent visual for how impossible it is for a rich man to get into heaven. The idea of offloading wealth and possessions made this a great teaching image.

However, the idea that the “eye of the needle” was a gate is simply a myth. If Jesus had meant a literal gate, the scriptures would say “the eye of the needle,” but it says “the eye of a needle.”

To confirm that Jesus used such “large and small” comparisons, he also describes the man who “strains out a gnat, but swallows a camel” (Matt. 23:24). Here it’s an actual gnat, as in the previous, it is an actual needle. As stated in the respected Jerome Biblical Commentary, “the figure of the camel and the eye of the needle means exactly what is said; it does not refer to a cable or a small gate of Jerusalem” (97).

3. The folded napkin in the tomb meant that Jesus would come back.

The Gospel of John tells us that the napkin, or face cloth, of Christ was rolled or folded up in a place by itself (20:7). Some have invented a custom that never existed, claiming that in biblical times, a man would crumple up his napkin and toss it aside if he was done with dinner but would fold it neatly and set it aside if he was leaving for a moment but would soon return.

Therefore, since Jesus’s face cloth or napkin was folded up in the empty tomb, it was a signal that Jesus would return.

Logos sums it up:

Numerous Bible study sources have been checked, but there is nothing about this alleged Jewish custom of the folded napkins. The only references to this story seem to be from internet postings and emails that appear to have originated in 2007. . . .

The truth is that table napkins, such as we use today, were not used in Jesus’ day. Jews would do an after-meal hand washing as part of the eating ritual. . . . The folding of the napkin as a sign that a dinner guest was finished may be good European custom, but it appears this custom was unknown in the land of Israel in the time of Jesus.

The folded napkin, like the others here, is a myth.

4. Jesus couldn’t have been born on December 25 because sheep aren’t out in the fields in winter.

The presumption is often expressed that winter in Bethlehem is harsh and cold. Sheep would not be out in the fields in December, so Christmas could not have been on December 25.

Scripture says, “In the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night” (Luke 2:8). So it is assumed that since there were shepherds out in the fields at night with their sheep at the birth of Jesus, it certainly could not have been December.

Well, I’ve been to Bethlehem well over a hundred times, and I’ve seen sheep and shepherds out in the fields during December. The average temperature in Bethlehem in December is from a high of 60 to a low of about 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Yes, I have seen it snow in Bethlehem, but winters are mild, and the snow melts quickly. It’s not like Michigan or Minnesota.

Additionally, European sheep give birth in the spring, but the Awassi breed in the Middle East “usually give birth in November to January, thus providing evidence for the traditional time of Jesus’ birth in mid-December” (82).

So those who deny that sheep and shepherds were in the fields of Bethlehem on December 25 must have never been there during December. Sheep have to eat. If the weather does get colder, they have nice wool coats, and there are large caves outside Bethlehem that are cool in the summer and warm in the winter. These caves also protect the sheep during the night.

5. Paul was given a new name at his conversion.

Simon was given a new name by Jesus. He was Simon, son of John, but Jesus said, “You are now Peter.” From that point on, he was called Simon Peter, with his old name and his new name combined.

Saul of Tarsus was an opponent of the Church and persecuted the Christians. But later we hear him being referred to as Paul. Many people assume that, like Peter, he was given the new name after his conversion on the road to Damascus.

However, that is not the case. He had two names from his birth. Saul was his Jewish name, after the first king of Israel. And because he was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:27-28), he also had a Roman name, which was Paul. Acts recalls “Saul, who was also known as Paul,” being “filled with the Holy Spirit” (13:9). He had two names from birth—Saulos and Paulos—and was not given a new name at his conversion.

6. Lambs were “swaddled” to keep them perfect for Passover sacrifices.

At his birth, Jesus was swaddled by his mother, Mary (Luke 2:7). After birth, a baby was washed, rubbed with salt, and wrapped with bands of cloth to provide warmth, protection of the limbs, and a sense of security (see Ezek. 16:4).

A myth has arisen suggesting that shepherds swaddled lambs designated for sacrifice to ensure that they were delivered unblemished according to the requirement—a year-old male without blemish (see Exod. 12:5). Recent books and websites assert this as a fact, but I have found no evidence, factual or historical, to support it. It appears that someone thought it was a nice parallel—lambs swaddled, and the Lamb of God swaddled in preparation for a spotless sacrifice.

There is nothing in Scripture about swaddling lambs. During the time of Christ, up to 250,000 lambs were sacrificed a year on Passover. All of them were swaddled? How would a swaddled lamb eat? Lambs follow their mother around and jockey for the teat from which they get milk. Were all of the swaddled lambs fed from a bottle? Were they swaddled for the whole year before sacrifice? There are some serious practical reasons to disbelieve this story.

I have found no serious historical document, archaeological evidence, commentary, or Bible dictionary that even suggests such a practice. I’ve found only assertions on blogs and devotional material, all without a shed of documentation. Again, it seems as though a too-clever devotional idea became a “fact” by well-meaning folks who picked it up and spread it as truth with no evidence whatsoever.

There you have it: six Bible myths, debunked. Next time you see something like one of these, think twice before you click “share”!

Did you like this content? Please help keep us ad-free
Enjoying this content?  Please support our mission!Donatewww.catholic.com/support-us