Clau'dia (Κλαυδία, femn. of Claudius), a Christian female mentioned in 2Ti 4:21, as saluting Timotheus, A.D. 64. She is thought to have become the wife of Pudens, who is mentioned in the same verse (although Linus is named between). It has been supposed that this Claudia was a British maiden, daughter of king Cogidunus, an ally of Rome (Tacitus, Agricol. 14), who took the name of his imperial patron, Tiberius Claudius. Pudens, we gather from an inscription at Chichester, and now in the gardens at Goodwood, was at one time in close connection with king Cogidunus, and gave an area for a temple of Neptune and Minerva, which was built by that king's authority. Claudia is said in Martial (11, 53) to have been of British extraction (caeruleis Britannis edita). Moreover, she is there also called Rufina. Now Pomponia, wife of the late commander in Britain, Aulus Plautius, under whom Claudia's father was received into alliance, belonged to a house of which the Rufi were one of the chief branches. If she herself were a Rufa, and Claudia her protegee, the latter might well be called Rufina; and we know that Pomponia was tried for having embraced a foreign religion (superstitionis externae rea) in the year 57 (Tacitus, Ann. 12:32), so that there are many circumstances concurrent tending to give verisimilitude to the conjecture. On the other hand, it may be said that the attempt to identify this Claudia with the British lady Claudia, whose marriage to Pudens is celebrated by Martial (Epig. 4, 13), rests on no foundation beyond the identity of the names of the parties, and the fact that Martial calls Pudens "sanctus," and says he was a corrector of his verses. But the identity of names so common as Pudens and Claudia may be nothing more than a mere accidental coincidence; as for the term "sanctus," it is precisely one which a heathen would not have applied to a Christian, whom he would have regarded as the adherent of a "prava superstitio" (Pliny, Ep. ad Traj.); and as respects Pudens's correction of Martial's verses, until we know whether that was a correction of their style or a correction of their morals (in which case Pudens really must have done his work very badly), we can build nothing on it. On the other hand, the immoral character of Martial himself renders it improbable that he should have had a Christian and a friend of Paul among his friends. Further, Paul's Pudens and Claudia, if husband and wife, must have been married before A.D. 67, the latest date that can be assigned to Paul's writing. But Martial's epigram must have been written after this, perhaps several years after, for he came to Rome only in A.D. 66; so that, if they were married persons in 67, it is not likely Martial would celebrate their nuptials years after this. In fine, if Paul's Pudens and Claudia were unmarried at the time of his writing, they must at least have been persons of standing and reputation among the Christians; and, in this case, can it be supposed that a poet meaning to gratify them would invoke on them the favor of heathen deities, whom they had renounced with abhorrence? See Archdeacon Williams's pamphlet, On Pudens and Claudia (Lond. 1848); an article in the Quart. Rev. for July, 11858, entitled "The Romans at Colchester;" and an Excursus in Alford's Greek Testament (vol. 3. prolegg. p. 104), in which the contents of the two works first mentioned are embodied in a summary form. See also Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, 2, 484 n.