Talk:Caratacus/Archive 1

                Caratacus

Cheiftan Caratacus was a Celtic warrior from the Catuvellaunii tribe, he was the son of a king of a powerful tribe in south-east England, King Cunobelin.

Caratacus first became famous as a warrior when he defeated the Atrebates tribe and their king Verica. Verica was very cross after this and he asked Rome for help. Emperor Claudis who already wanted to attack Britain agreed.

Caratacus and his brother Togodumnus led the battle in 43 A.D. against the Romans but the were defeated.Togodumnus was killed at the battle of Medway and Caratacus fled south.

Caratacus's tribesmen accepted the Romans but he did not.He fought against govenor Aulus Plautis in southern England and Wales. He also gave lots of trouble to the next govenor Publius Ostorius Scapula. Scapula defeated Caratacus in 50 A.D. at the Battle of Caer Caradock and he fled again.

Caratacus fled North to help the Brigantes queen, Cartimandua. But Cartimandua had changed her mind and now wanted to support Rome so she betrayed Caratacus and gave him to the Romans.

Caratacus was sent to Rome. He expected to be killed but the Romans let him talk to their government, the senate. They liked his speech so much that he was pardoned and emperor Claudius allowed Caratacus and his family to live peacefully in Rome.It is not known when Caratcus died but it was probably in 54 A.D.

Dominic Pogge-von Strandmann

Father of Pope Linus??

I am deleting his son [[Pope Linus | Llyn (Linus)]] I am unaware of any evidence for this --ClemMcGann 02:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiRat, it is very bad form to remove other people's contributions to the talk page. I've put ClemMcGann's addition back. I have also moved your contribution about Caratacus's alleged children to the end of the page. I've done a quick Google and found a number of websites that make these claims: all are of a British Israelite persuasion and none that I've found cite their sources. If you know what evidence these theories are based on, please add it to the article. --Nicknack009 09:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Having done a bit of googling, I've added a bit about Martial's British Claudia, her (possible) relationship with Linus and Pudens and their (possible) appearance in the New Testament, which seems to be the basis of the theory. Mind you, the bit about Pope Linus being named as Claudia's brother in the Apostolic Constitutions is based on WikiRat's contribution to Talk:Pope Linus, and I don't see that mentioned in the text of the Constitutions at CCEL (Book 1 here), so unless there's an another version of the Constitutions it may be best removed. --Nicknack009 12:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Dio Cassius' statement

This article currently reads that "Caratacus is described as a 'barbarian Christian' by Dio Cassius." Can someone provide the information where Dio Cassius wrote this? I find this claim about Caratacus surprising, but if this can be easily verified then it should clearly remain. -- llywrch 17:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Epitome of Book LXI, 33:3c [1]. Of course, Dio Cassius wrote in the early 3rd century, the epitomes were made later than that, and they're presumably known from manuscripts even later than that, so how reliable the claim is I wouldn't like to say. --Nicknack009 18:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

True, this may not be Dio's own opinion, but now it is a verifiable fact that someone within a couple of centuries after his death at least thought that Caratacus was a Christian. The historical record is full of odd inconsistencies like that, which require careful documenting. Who knows, maybe a few days from now -- or a few years -- a new contributor will look at that & recall that this Epitome of Dio has been argued to have a clear Christian bias, & supply that information & a proper cite.

There have been cases where the cite a contributor to Wikipedia provides to confirm a given statement is nothing more than a terse "Herotodus" or "Pliny", then when I've gone back & tried to verify the statement, I'm unable to locate the passage -- which then leads to the suspicion that the original contributor has been just throwing out impressive names to hide his lack of research. -- llywrch 20:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

True enough, but the great thing about the internet is the easy access to so many translated primary sources, so you don't have to take anyone's word for it. I've found the reference to Claudia and Linus in the Apostolic Constitutions at CCEL. It's not where WikiRat says it is (Book VII section IV [2], not Book 1 Ch 46), and it says Linus is Claudia's son, not brother. It's misquoted and misreferenced on a number of British Israelite sites, all of which no doubt took it from the same unreliable source. So that's the theory that Pope Linus was Caratacus's son scotched then. --Nicknack009 23:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite right, the reference was not where I indicated it was. Sorry about that, and thanks for point out the correct reference. The CCEL link you provided for Apostolic Constitutions is far better than the one I was using. I could only find on-line fragments, but the CCEL link is very good. Good find.

However in citing Linus and Claudia as siblings the source for this reference is the epistle of Clemens Romanus who writes "Sanctissimus Linus, frater Claudiae". I have not been able to find an "on-line" copy of this epistle, but last I checked Wikipedia's sourced need not all be on-line.

WikiRat 17:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Brief change based upon content of MSS ‘Acts of SS. Pudentiana and Praxedis,’ (also Acts of Pastor and Timothy.) which outlines history of St. Pudentiana (Palatium Britannicum) as the most ancient church in the world. Some Roman Catholic scholars (Cardinal Wiseman) hold this history to be mythical on theological grounds, nonetheless the manuscript is there.

WikiRat 19:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"A few scholars"

WikiRat: can you name the "scholars" who advocate this stuff about Caratacus's supposed children? If so, cite them. If not, don't pretend it has more legitimacy than it has. The only sources I can find that advocate this nonsense are British Israelite websites who think that Bran the Blessed was real and Geoffrey of Monmouth is reliable, and never cite their sources. I've been able to work out their line of reasoning connecting Caratacus with Linus, but I've also been able to work out it's based on (deliberately?) misquoted sources. The only way of connecting Linus to Caratacus is through his relationship with someone called Claudia, and every woman in the Roman Empire either in the Claudii family, freed by the Claudii family or given citizenship under Claudius or Nero was called Claudia. Trying to claim that Claudia is a Roman version of "Gladys", which is a modern name anyway, is obvious nonsense given how important the Claudii were. The Claudia and Pudens in 2 Timothy almost certainly aren't the Claudia and Pudens from Martial given the dates, and the only way to connect Claudia with Caracatus is to assume that Caratacus's family were the only Britons in Rome, which anyone who's read even a cursory amount about Roman and pre-Roman Britain knows is false. No evidence whatsoever has been put forward for Caratacus's supposed other children. --Nicknack009 22:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"OK"

Nicknack009, clearly you are hostile to these edits (presumably you are comfortable with some "Latinized" view of Caratacus), but please stop trying to either associate this discussion with British Israelism or categorize this discussion as anything less than legitimate. I've provided some "recognized" scholars ( The Bollandists, Orazio Marucchi, Giovanni Battista de Rossi, Archbishop Ussher. Archdeacon J. William, Conybeare, W.J & Dr. J.S. Howson, Baronius etc) who have engaged in this debate and done work in this area.

Let me outline more clearly some of the issues here:

1. We know Claudia Rufina existed and was British because Martial says so.
2. We know that Claudia was married to Pudens (Martial), and I have provided additional sources (which you are free not to believe if you wish) that likely associates Claudia and Pudens with Saint Paul (note also - that the Catholic scholars Orazio Marucchi, Giovanni Battista de Rossi, and others support that idea according to CCEL).
3. Claudia Rufina is more commonly associated with Caratacus' brother, Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus aka "Togidubnus" and not with Caratacus himself (only by scholarly convention).
4. Lets think for a minute here: Considering that Togidubnus stayed in Britian as a client king of Rome (after he sold his brother Caratacus out to the Romans), and Caratacus ended up going to Rome with his family, after defeat. Who do you think Claudia Rufina is more likely the daughter of? Caratacus or Togidubnus? Regardless, whether Claudia was Caratacus' neice or his daughter, doesn't invalidate any of the contributions that I have made in sorting out early Roman Christians.
5. More over, we also know that Claudia and Pudens' Roman estate became one of the earliest churches in Rome (though its claim to being the first church is subject to debate). We have a fairly detailed history of this estate forward as Santa Pudenziana (after Claudia's husband) and its association with early Christianity not really at dispute (or am I wrong?)

The 'connection' between Martial's Claudia (the Briton) and Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus (or Togidubnus) was not made by me. However it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that although there may have been many Claudia's in Rome, there weren't that many Togidubnus. Or that the Togidubnus with whom Claudia was connected to is the same Togodumnus considered to have been Caratacus' brother. This very article says as much and did so before I began contributing.

As far as I can tell, neither Claudia Rufina, Martial, or any of the other sources I've provide are connected with British Israelism or for that matter Geoffrey of Monmouth. It appears from the brief exposure to British Israelite ideas that this debate has required of me, that they are more interested in early Israelite history than Saints and Rome and so I'm not exactly sure what the connection is and why they have picked up on the history of Caratacus and Claudia and taken an interest - the two themes don't seem related (to me).

Regardless, your problem with my contributions seem more to do with a problem you seem have with British Israelism than Claudia Rufina being related to Togidubnus or Caratacus. I therefore recommend you take your issue over to the British Israelite thread or provide something other than opinion here, that refutes:

1. Claudia Rufina (as identified by Martial) was not related to Togidubnus;
2. Togidubnus and Togodumnus are not one and the same person;
3. Togodumnus was not Caratacus' brother
4. ergo Claudia Rufina was NOT related to Caratacus ("the barbarian Christian")

I suspect to do so will require someone take just a bit more than even a cursory amount [of reading] about Roman or pre-Roman Britain. To engage in this current debate I suspect that only a cursory amount [of reading] about Roman or pre-Roman Britain will not be sufficient.

You're lucky then that I've done quite a bit more than a cursory amount of reading, and note the attempted insult. You may be surprised to learn that sometimes, just sometimes, you might meet someone who knows more about a given subject than you do.

First off, Togidubnus/Cogidubnus and Togodumnus are probably not the same person. Togudumnus is known only from Dio Cassius's account of the Roman conquest of 43 AD. Dio clearly says that Togodumnus was Caratacus's brother, fought against the Roman invaders and died shortly after the battle on the Thames. Cogidubnus, on the other hand, is known from Tacitus's Agricola, which states that he was a puppet king who was loyal to Rome into "living memory" (written in the 90s AD), and from an inscription in Chichester. The sources don't support them being the same person.

As for Claudia. Martial's Claudia may be related to Caratacus. She may be related to Cogidubnus. She may, for all we know, be related to neither of them and descended from a British captive bought as a slave by a member of the Claudii and later freed. She may be the Claudia from 2 Timothy, and she may be the mother or sister of Pope Linus. Alternatively they may all be different women with the same name. It's impossible to say. All I'm trying to do is distinguish what can be clearly demonstrated as fact from what is interesting conjecture.

You say I am "hostile" to your edits, when in fact I am merely critical. I admit I find you frustrating. I believe you have swallowed uncritically a theory that is intriguing and attractive, and are not prepared to listen to opposing viewpoints. Your regular use of the phrase "scholarly convention" to dismiss opinions you don't like is arrogant and rude. I have spent a great deal of effort arguing based on Roman name transmission why Claudia is more likely to be related to Cogidubnus than to Caratacus. You tend to assume your conclusions, or at least assert them before you have argued them, which makes you argue your case incoherently.

For what it's worth, I believe this material about Caratacus's supposed family and their Christian links is interesting and deserves to be here, and I have done my own digging for evidence to try and assess just how much water it holds (my conclusion on the evidence so far: just about plausible, but a very long way short of certain) in the interests of keeping it here. --Nicknack009 21:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

On Togidubnus/Cogidubnus and Togodumnus not being the same person, Togodumnus states that Togodumnus is thought to be likely the eldest son of Cymbeline, while this article says that Caratacus is thought to be the third son of the same king. So Togodumnus and Togidubnus/Cogidubnus were at least brothers if Togidubnus/Cogidubnus was brother to Caratacus. It seems likely that Togodumnus and Togidubnus/Cogidubnus are one and the same, though as Nicknack009 points out he couldn't have both died and continue to rule. I think what might be at dispute is his outcome and not his identity.

24.43.181.44 22:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You people are all stupid. The source of information about the relationship between Caradawg and Gladys (aka Claudia aka Pomponia Graecina) can be found in one of the [Welsh] Triads found in Mabinogion. Get a life!

[edit:] By the way, the Mabinogion is also where Geoffrey of Monmouth got his info - (thief).

131.137.245.199 01:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The Welsh Triads entirely separate from the Mabinogion. The authentic Triads from the "four ancient books" [3] are online and make no reference to "Gladys". Neither does Iolo Morgannwg's later collection of triads,[4] which is in any case of doubtful authenticity. I'll work up a "legend" section based on these texts. --Nicknack009 03:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Further - if you are going to contribute to this article, consider registering, and be civil. WikiRat 15:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Nicknack009, I admit I find you frustrating as well. While you believe I have swallowed uncritically a theory that is intriguing and attractive, I believe that you buy into the Catholic Encyclopaedia's view of early Christianity without question. Therefore, though I appear impetuous to you, you appear dogmatic to me. These views come from us having different understandings, and if truth be known, neither of us is (probably) quite right. The virtue is in the debate.

Allow me to make an historiographical comment then.

I am prepared to listen to opposing viewpoints, however will not accept the conventional arguments without an equal amount of convincing. My interest here, is in understanding how Christianity and Britain where first introduced to one another. I admit, I suspect that Christianity was introduced to Britain at least as early as it was introduced to Rome (if not earlier). I admit also, that the history of Christianity and Britain has likely been coloured (ok tainted) by the traditional Roman Catholic (Latinized) viewpoint. That’s not to say that viewpoint is bad, just Rome-centric, and likely not always objective or comprehensive. There is more to Britain and its involvement with Rome than what Rome records. Admittedly this would make my arguments appear to traditionalists as revisionary (though I don’t believe myself to be one).

This also means however, I do approach Roman British history (or British Roman history) with a desire to fill in the gaps that Roman history has left (and there are gaps). It also means that I sometimes tend to reject the orthodox view (its really not arrogance or rudeness). It does not mean that I am not careful in my approach. I suppose it is frustrating for both of us because we are really arguing about first principles and axioms. Regardless, your criticisms are insightful, you seem well-versed in early sources (Latin?), and you are thorough. Therefore, let neither of us take offence to the debate.

I was trying to level a subtle insult in your direction, and am sorry. Please don’t try to categorize my views, though be critical if you must. WikiRat 17:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

My views on early Christianity are probably at least as far from the Catholic Encyclopedia's as yours are - if you're a believing Christian you may even find them offensive - but early Christianity really isn't what I'm interested in. My interest is in the ancient history of Britain and Ireland. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was a Christian presence in Britain at a very early date - after all, the man who led the conquest was almost certainly married to a Christian, and non-mainstream religions were always popular in the Roman army - but I'm inclined to take medieval sources, which are often keen to play up their country's ancient Christian heritage, with a healthy pinch of salt. --Nicknack009 20:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed link. This great debate between Nicknack009 and Wikirat has established at least one thing; if you're going to edit this article you damn well better have references. Though interesting, that link seemed more theory than proof.

What a mess

What happened to this article? What's with all the fringe theories?

BTW, the Pastoral Epistles are generally considered pseudepigraphic, dating to the late first century (not the 60s), according to Encarta 97:

Although church tradition has attributed the three Epistles to Paul, many modern scholars have questioned Paul's authorship. According to these scholars, the style and vocabulary of the so-called Pastorals differ significantly from those of the genuine Pauline writings; also the historical situation reflected in the three Pastoral Epistles does not fit into any known situation of Paul's life as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles and in the genuine Pauline letters. The Pastorals now are widely attributed to a single unknown author of the late 1st century, who pseudonymously ascribed them to Paul; possibly, he was a disciple of Paul and used some genuine Pauline material in his work. The order of composition is not known. Neither, indisputably, are the destinations known, although it appears that the two Epistles to Timothy were meant for churches in Asia Minor and that the Epistle to Titus was sent to Crete. Unlike other Pauline letters, however, these are addressed not to the congregation, but to its leader.

I'm not an expert on British history, but I do know bullshit when I see it. If someone who knows about British history can approach this article without a religious or nationalist slant, a thorough cleanup of the article would be a great idea.--Rob117 17:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The web is full of fringe theorists, and the nature of Wikipedia means their theories will end up here. I've done my best to keep it under control in this article. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the sources for this period of British history, and the "History" section is, I think, pretty unassailable. I'm not so sure about the accuracy of the "Legend" section, but it is clearly marked as legend and kept separate from the history.

The stuff about Caratacus and his family being early Christians in Rome is presumably the bit you're worried about. It is, I think, pretty tenuous and was originally added uncritically and without references. I've tried to identify the sources and reasoning behind it and highlight its deficiencies while retaining the obligatory NPOV. It should hopefully be clear that to get from Caratacus to the various Christian characters takes a string of conjectures which, while not impossible, takes a number of leaps of faith.

I think that's a better way to deal with fringe theories than simply ignoring or deleting them. Every fringe theorist presents himself as the victim of an academic establishment trying to suppress new ideas (never mind these "new ideas" derive from Archbishop Ussher). Delete it and it'll be put straight back in, as uncritical and unreferenced as before. More honest and more helpful to the uninformed reader to present the theory, reference it where you can and explain the problems with it. --Nicknack009 22:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, after reading the article again, I guess I overestimated the credence being given to the Caratacus speculation. I was probably confusing this article with the Celtic Christianity article I had just finished reading, which does seem to be overtly resentful of mainstream historians, even taking a subtle jab at them by putting the term "modern scholars" in quote-on-quote form at one point. As I said, I don't know much about this period (most of the pages I work on have to do with the Ancient Near East), but even a cursory look into a history textbook could tell me there's something weird about some of the stuff that is being argued for in that article.--Rob117 21:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

And while I appreciate your method of dealing with fringe theorists, the fact of the matter is that they don't follow the rules. NPOV, as I understand it (I could be wrong), is meant to pertain to different interpretations of evidence put forward by mainstream scholars. For example, there is legitemate debate about whether or not the early pharaoh Narmer was the pharaoh who unified Egypt. This is real debate in which the NPOV policy would apply. However, imagine if on every article about Egypt, we had to write something about the claim that Egyptian civilization was founded by space aliens in order to appease some guy who insists he's a genius being persecuted by the "academic establishment." It's fringe, it's unnecessary, and it just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If the authors of Encarta didn't feel compelled to address this in every article, why should we? Instead of giving into this, we should direct them to the pages that explain what the rules are. This is not only about NPOV, but also about original research, which many fringe posters tend to include as well. --Rob117 21:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Those contributions where mine and I am willing and capable of supporting anything that I have added with credible citations. Rob117 I see you still trying to label ideas that don’t fit your orthodox views as fringe, than I can live with that. However, anything cited or referenced, must be refuted (not merely labeled) if editing is involved. Name calling is merely a matter of perspective, for I see your views as ideologically driven half truths.

This Wikipedia is full of factual incongruities, due to communities of propagandists attempting to control article content for political reasons. For example, consider the European colonization of the Americas article which states clearly the first European efforts in the Americas was Christopher Columbus. While the Vinland article does a reasonable job of arguing that it happened quite a bit before Christopher Columbus, with Leif Eiríksson. Both articles in their original form said completely opposite things, and both could not be true. Proponents of the European colonization of the Americas thought the authors of the Vinland article radicals, fringe etc and likewise Vineland proponents thought the Christopher Columbus camp the same. Both articles cannot be factually correct when they contradict one another. However, though truth cannot always be discerned absolutely, debate does help focus our appreciation of it better. In some Hegelian process the contrary views become synthesized through debate.

I don’t hide the fact that I think recent Catholic dogma has commandeered ecclesiastical history, which I happen to be interested in. Supplemented by some sloppy secular scholarship, things are worse. Consider the question “Who was the first Bishop of Rome?” Devoid of theology, the question is simple, and should be simple to answer. There are ancient sources that speak to the issue. If this were some other question that didn't have such theological implications, the evidence would be accepted at face value.

Saint Peter claims in Apostolic Constitutions" (Book VII Section IV) that the first Bishop of Rome was Saint Linus, appointed by Saint Paul, who visited Rome before Peter, and whose visits to Rome made it into the Bible. Than why isn’t this question answered without debate? Because Roman Catholic tradition says that the first Bishop of Rome was Peter. The whole Roman Church is built upon this idea. Saint Peter’s claim to be the first Bishop of Rome doesn’t have nearly the support that Saint Linus’ does especially since Saint Peter himself supports Saint Linus’ claim yet the bulk of the community that research this issue are Catholic and therefore have systemic ideological bias, in favour of a community belief.

Is the idea that Saint Linus was the first Bishop of Rome also fringe? Sure, if you’re Catholic, however Saint Peter himself then has to be viewed as such unless we deal with the claim itself. Is it without merit? Absolutely not. The debate, and evidence may not resolve the issue conclusively, especially when people harbour political or religious reasons for believing one over the other, but the debate itself must be allowed to take place so that balance prevails.

In the case of the Vineland and the European colonization of the Americas articles the middle ground was to put a brief comment in at the top mentioning the other article. Any diligent researcher now has the opportunity to investigate the relationship between the evidence and contribute to the debate constructively. Rob117 this article may contain competing theories. But there are communities of credible researchers that have argued both. It just so happens that the community you align your views with are primarily restricted to more recent times. It just so happens that the views I align my views with are traditional Church scholars.

You can call my contributions "fringe" all you want, you can label me "fringe" too if it helps, I won't even accuse you of emulating the Gestapo. However, as long as the disputed elements are justified with references and source materials, I would appreciate if you would deal with them as you would have your own dealt with and respect them enough to provide counter evidence, or balanced and supported counter claims. --WikiRat 17:18, 5 November 2005 (EST)

The Apostolic Constitutions are late and pseudepigraphic. The big problem I have is that you trust sources without regard for date and authorship.

And knock it off with the persecuted genius act. Your views are fringe. That is not a personal attack, it is a simple statement on how your views compare to those of the majority of researchers on this subject. You assert that this is because modern historians are buying into church propoganda. If those historians happen to be Catholic priests, you may have a point with regard to some (not nearly all) of those individual Catholic priests. But when the vast majority of secular historians affirm this, and you still posit what you do, I'm afraid you're going into the realm of a conspiracy theory.--Rob117 01:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

--
How many independent references have I cited that have contributed to an idea? I've cited Tertullian (Adversus Judaeos), Dio Cassius, Rabanus Maurus (Liber Pœnitentitæ), Saint Peter (Apostolic Constitutions), Eusebius, Bodleian Manuscript, Hippolytus, Baronius, Hardynge, the Domesday Survey, W. Phelps (The History and Antiquities of Somersetshire), Malmsebury, St. Hilary of Pottiers, St. John Chrysostom, Polydore Vergil, Saint Augustine (Epistolae ad Gregorium) and others?

Is it your contention that I have misrepresented anything that any of those writers wrote? If so, please identify. If not, is it your contention that they did not write what I claim they did (I tried to provide links where their work exists on line). If not, is it your contention then, that none of them are to be believed - at all (or in part)?

I have no problem accepting your contention that we cannot believe all sources all the time. Just because modern secular historians have formulated favoured theories of ecclesiastical history that disagrees with the work of those dead guys, doesn't mean that the dead guys are wrong, or that the recent views are correct. I've said, and I'll say again, read what those dead guys wrote (for what they wrote WAS an accepted tradition with scholarly support at one time), and if you would like their claims refuted (don't simply appeal to consensus, for it is merely a sign of fashion), rather show me the modern scholars that have refuted the work of these earlier experts, show me the authors that presented more credible interpretations of the evidence.

Take the issue of Christianity’s arrival in Britain; I think people’s attitudes are changing about giving credit to the Roman Empire. I suspect that many reasonable people would likely concede that Christianity does appear to have arrived in Britain before Rome, though how is still disputed.

If many reasonable people are willing to make this concession, than a logical place to start is to examine the contention that the apostles traveled into Europe and brought it themselves. The “third” (or fourth) bishop of Rome Clement wrote that Saint Paul has taken the Gospel to the bounds of the West. That may mean Spain / Portugal possibly France or Britain. Lets examine that claim then, and find out exactly what it does mean. (Incidently, I did not cite a quote by Clement (who was hostile to Britain) that claims in Epistle to the Corinthians, that the apostles taught their faith in Britain).

Did you know that in 1931 Pope Pius XI addressed the visiting English Roman Catholic Mayors of Bath, Colchester, and Dorchest along with the Friends of Italy Society and told them in his address (references to the address itself can be found quoted in your local archives if they carry the Morning Post, March 27th, 1931) that Saint Paul not Saint Gregory brought Christianity to Britain? What would any logical person conclude from this claim? Do we conclude that Pope Pius XI is out of his mind or simply following tradition (for that was certainly NOT Catholic tradition at the time)? This claim was based upon what Pope Pius XI knew, and to his credit, he knew that this claim was first made by Clement I, Origen, Mello, Eusebius, Athanasius and implied by Tertullian.

Did you know that the first Bishop of Marseilles is considered to have been Saint Lazarus (the dead guy)? That doesn’t make any sense does it? But what did Baronius state? He stated that Lazarus traveled to Marseilles. Where did he get this idea? He got it from Rabanus Maurus (and others). Doesn’t sound so unlikely then unless we have evidence Maurus (and others) was wrong or was fabricating history (why would he?)

I am neither persecuted, nor a genius, nor the nut you portray me to be. If you want to keep this civil, recognize that my ideas are founded in study of mainstream and accepted sources. Continue to categorize me to quell my contributions as you have, and I will add passion to the argument. Otherwise, I’m happy to patiently work with any critics to improve what we know about ecclesiastical history, or to explain what was written about the spread of the Christian cult. Though I admire the work of guys like James Ussher, I am not blinded by their short-comings. --WikiRat 23:05, 5 November 2005 (EST)

Interesting that you decline to cite a quote from Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians to the effect that the apostles taught their faith in Britain, because I can't find any such statement in either of Clement's epistles to the Corinthians (First and Second) (the "farthest bounds of the west" is in Chapter 5 of the first letter). I suspect, like in the Apostolic Constitutions quote, you may be relying on misleading secondary sources. --Nicknack009 11:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nicknack009, I'm disappointed. You still doubt me and call into question my use of sources. Tsk, Tsk. But since you asked check here. 1 Clement 3:14. Enjoy. (BTW that came from the links you sent me, Read the entire epistle from now on) WikiRat 08:06, 6 November 2005 (EST)

Read my comment again. I said I found the "utmost bounds of the west" quote (there seems to be different chapter numbering in different online translations). What I didn't find was the one you claimed said the apostles preached in Britain. --Nicknack009 13:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

More credulous British Israelite nonsense

LinuxDude, I don't know where you're getting your sources from, but I imagine they're the same as WikiRat's. One, Pomponia Graecina was not British. Two, as I've been through with WikiRat, just because you can find references to back up the identification of the Claudia and Pudens of Martial with the Claudia and Pudens of 2 Timothy, don't imagine you've validated the whole "Caratacus was a Christian" story. Three, have you read Williams, or Conybeare and Howson, or are you just lifting the cites from one of your British Israelite sources? I have consulted them both, and neither of them say what you think they do. Conybeare and Howson merely refer to the theory that the Claudiae and Pudenti can be identified, they do not advocate it, and Williams discusses Claudia's possible relationship to Cogidubnus, not Caratacus, based on an outdated interpretation of the Chichester inscription. Discussion of Claudia Rufina's possible ancestry belongs in her article, not here, so I've deleted most of it. --Nicknack009 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The final paragraph, restored by the user posting from 24.43.181.102, is wrong and misleading. It elides, I believe deliberately, the identification of the Claudia and Pudens of Martial with the Claudia and Pudens of 2 Timothy, which is referred to in the books cited, with the spurious connection with Caratacus, which is certainly not made by Conybeare and Howson or Williams. The sentence "The 1835 work The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Vol. II. by W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson makes no distinction between Martial's Claudia and the woman of the same name in 2 Timothy" is false - it refers to the theory in a footnote and takes no position on whether it's true or not. Williams, as stated above, explores Claudia's possible relationship with Cogidubnus (or "Cogidunus", as he prefers to call him). I've rewritten the paragraph again. As I said above, dissussion of Claudia Rufina's possible ancestry belongs in her article, not here, so I've cut that down.

I would also point out that I am extremely suspicious of the motives of anyone who tries to prevent the demonstrable falsehoods in Jowett's book being pointed out, as editors who write in favour of the Caratacus-Claudia connection persist in doing. --Nicknack009 12:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)