Talk:Rufus Pudens Pudentianna

See Talk:Palatium Britannicum. --Panairjdde 11:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed dispute link. An independently written Wikipedia's article (in German), makes the same claim here as does this article.

If this article is truly in dispute, than there should be consistancy between the German article and the English one, and the dispute tag should be inserted in both and the claims refuted.

Simply referencing a debate going on in another article is not sufficient. If you have evidence this article is not correct, kindly articulate it here, the tag will stand, and we can work through the scholarship to resolve the issues. WikiRat 12:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know what sparks this elaborate genealogical fantasy. Any Roman sources, aside from the Pauline Epistle to the Romans mentioning a "Rufus"? --Wetman 04:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about the German version, since I don't know German. As regards my points for considering this a hoax:

1. Romans 16:13 says that Paulus salutes Rufus and their (Paulus' and Rufus') mother;
2. Martial, in iv.13, says to Rufus that Claudia Peregrina is marrying Pudens, friend of the poet;
3. Martial, xi.53, says that Claudia Rufina is British

So we know that there was a British Claudia Rufina, that this woman possibly (with the name of Claudia Peregrina) married a Pudens, and that Paulus knew and considered his brother a Rufus. The connections among these peoples are not straightforward, and should be demonstrated. Furthermore, note that the article says that Rufus was the son of Priscilla (not Claudia), while, according to your interpretation, Martial is announcing to Rufus the marriage of Rufus' mother with Rufus' father!--Panairjdde 09:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wetman this is a simple dispute over the interpretation of early sources. It is as much a fantasy to deny the connection of the two Claudia's as to hold it. You've made it clear you think it unlikely the two are one and the same, but no evidence has been presented that the two aren't one and the same. The issue is that multiple early sources make reference to prominent "Romans". The name Claudia is associated with Pudens in multiple places, and though you don't happen to believe they are the same people, it is as likely they are as not. When you use words like "fantasy" and “hoax” to discribe these arguments, you not only show contempt for ideas you don't personally hold (and highly insulting), but you show how dogmatic you are being yourself. I don't object to the idea that the two sources that cite Claudia may be relating to different Claudia, and I wouldn’t categorize your arguments as “fantasy” though I think that that assumption is incorrect. I’ll ask you kindly not to categorize the position that you do not belief as “fantasy”.

On the German article; whether you speak German or not, the body of scholars that hold that Martial’s Claudia was the same as the one mentioned the Bible is broader than you indicate. When you categorize this claim as a hoax of fantasy, and ignore an independent Wikipedia article that says pretty much the same thing, you are really saying that you don’t acknowledge as authoritative anyone who writes, what you don’t believe. Clearly this doesn’t serve Wikipedia, nor does it help the article.

If for some dogmatic reason, you are offended by the idea that someone mentioned in the Bible might have been British, than you’re going to reject this association on dogmatic grounds, and reject all scholars who belief that to be a reasonable conclusion examining the evidence. There are many credible scholars (including modern ones) that accept this association to be true, and traditionally this has been the interpretation by Church historians. Although I’m not one who accepts things simply because they have been traditionally held, I think in this case the tradition stems from the association of Claudia’s grave (and her children’s too), and Puden’s church with the Claudia and Pudens mentioned by Martial. Since there is both a tradition (with justification) of accepting this association, and a body of scholars that accept this tradition, the article should therefore reflect both positions, putting each in context. Your categorization that this is fringe, fantasy, or hoax association is simply not correct. WikiRat 11:06, 4 November 2005 (EST)

There is no dispute over "early sources" for there are none to connect these various people. There is no connection to deny. Every female in the gens was named "Claudia", as every reader knows. The stricture against Original Research at Wikipedia is meant to protect the project from just such fantasy-spinning as this. --Wetman 06:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

My dear WikiRat, first of all you should realize that there are two persons countering your thesis, Wetman and me. However, I speak for myself.

You seem to reduce the whole matter to a choice of believing or not that two diferent persons are the same. My points on this matter are:

1. the burden of providing a demonstration relies on those making the claim, not on those countering it. Therefore it should be you to prove that those are the same people. If you have no other proofs but those presented in the article, than it looks like everything relies on a weak bond, the possibility that the man cited by Paul is the same cited by Martial: where did you take the name Rufus "Pudens" "Pudentiana", for example? If the people supporting your idea have all and only the proofs provided in the article, than the matter is the same: what is insufficient to support the article claims are not your or those people reputations, but the proofs. The fact thare exists an independent Wikipedia article does not holds, per se: or this article has other proofs (could you provide them?), or it doesn't;
2. even if it were only a matter of believing or not that the Rufus in Paul's letter and the Rufus in Martial's poem are the same person, the article does not states this fact.

As regards the hoax (I never used the word fantasy), Merriam-Webster says it is "something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication". What I am saying is that, given the proofs already presented, the existence of a Rufus Pudens Pudentianna is a fabrication. Furthermore, I suspect that all the Palatium Britannicum thing is quite similar.

Best regards. --Panairjdde 08:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, I have asked Kenwilliams who wrote the German article to help us with sources. Ken, contends, that:

1. Holy Pudens. Roman Senator. Named Aquila Pudens, together with Priscilla (mother of St. Paul) father of 1) Novatus, 2) Praxedis, 3) Pudentiana, 4) Timotheus (known from the Bible), and 5) Rufus Pudens (both daughters seem to be fictive and they are not longer official Saints of the catholic church). About him there are a lot of legends. There are people who think he was a jew, born at Pontus (in my opinion a bad joke).
2. Rufus Pudens, Son of the first. He was a roman officer. 2nd highest in Britain, behind Aulus Plautius at the time of emperor Claudius. There (again, seems to be a legend) he should have married a british noblewoman. And both should have been one of the first Christians in Britain. He isn't ficitve - but the most wo "know" is a legend.
3. the there ist the Pudens of Martial - called Aulus Pudens (but Aulus seems to be incorrect) - and I also belive, he's an other Person. He was as Officier in Dacia - a little later than Rufus Pudens was.
4. Titus Valerius Pudens - soldier at the 2nd Legion Adiutrix. was from Pannonia Superior, died in Britain (in Chester was fount his tomb in 1732)
5. next Pudens was a Proconsul in Lycia-Pamphylia under Marcus Aurelius und Lucius Verus (PIR ² P 1064)
6. L. Arrius Pudens - Consul in 165
7. Q. Servilius - Consul in 166

I think what would be best is to have an article for each of the known Pudens, and cite each separately. As I stated, I will work with Ken to work out the references. This is the approach I favour. Cheers --WikiRat 19:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)