an expedition, under Marcus Scaurus, against the
Nabatseans (59 B.C. ) ; and, though their subjugation
was not accomplished at that time, it must have
taken place not much later. From the days of
Augustus the kings of the Arabians were as much
subject to the Empire as Herod, king of the Jews,
and they had the whole region between Herod's
dominions and the desert assigned to them. To
the north 'their territory reached as far as
Damascus, which was under their protection, and
even beyond Damascus, and enclosed as with a
girdle the whole of Palestinian Syria' (Mommsen,
Provinces 2 , Lend. 1909, ii. 148 f . ). The Arabians who
were present at the first Christian Pentecost (Ac 2 11 )
were most likely Nabatseans, possibly from Petra.
The Nabatsean kings made use of Greek official
designations, and St. Paul relates how 'the gov-
ernor ' (6 iffvApxyt) of Damascus ' under Aretas the
king' was foiled in the attempt, probably made at
the instigation of the Jews, to put him under arrest
soon after his conversion (2 Co ll* 2 *-). This
episode, which has an important bearing on the
chronology of St. Paul's life, raises a difficult his-
torical problem. Damascene coins of Tiberius
indicate that the city was under direct Roman
government till A.D. 34 ; and, as the legate of Syria
was engaged in hostilities with Aretas till the close
of the reign of Tiberius, it is very unlikely that this
emperor yielded up Damascus to the Nabatsean
king. But the accession of Caligula brought a
great change, and the suggestion is naturally made
that he bought over Aretas by ceding Damascus to
him. The fact that no Damascene coins bearing
the Emperor's image occur in the reigns of Cal-
igula and Claudius is in harmony with this theory
(Schiirer, HJP I. ii. 357 f . ). The view of Mommsen
(Provinces?, ii. 149), following Marquardt (Rom.
Staatsverwaltung, Leipzig, 1885, i. 405), is differ-
ent. Talking of the voluntary submission of the
city of Damascus to the king of the Nabatseans,
he says that
probably this dependence of the city on the Nabatsean king!
subsisted so long as there were such kings [i.e. from the begin-
ning of the Roman period till A.D. 106]. From the fact that the
city struck coins with the heads of the Roman emperors, there
follows doubtless its dependence on Rome and therewith its self-
administration, but not its non-dependence on the Roman vassal-
prince ; such protectorates assumed shapes so various that these
arrangements might well be compatible with each other.'
See, further, ARETAS.
In the Galatian Epistle (I 17 ) St. Paul states that
after his escape from Damascus he ' went away into
Arabia,' evidently for solitary communion with
God ; but he does not further define the place of
his retreat, and Acts makes no allusion to this
episode. When he quitted the city under cover of
darkness, he had not a long way to flee to a place
of safety, for the desert lies in close proximity to
the Damascene oasis. Possibly he went no further
than the fastnesses of Hauran. Lightfoot (Gal.
87 f.), Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, Lond. 1877,
p. 50), and others conjecture that he sought the
solitude of Mt. Sinai, with which he seems to show
some acquaintance in the same Epistle (Gal 4 25 ).
But he could scarcely have avoided specific refer-
ence to so memorable a journey, which would have
brought him into a kind of spiritual contact with
Moses and Elijah. Besides, the peninsula of Sinai
was about 400 miles from Damascus ; and, as
military operations were being actively carried on
by the legate of Syria against Aretas in A.D. 37
the probable year of St. Paul's conversion it
would scarcely have been possible for a stranger to
pass through the centre of the perturbed country
without an escort of soldiers.
In A.D. 106 the governor of Syria, Aulus Cornelius
Palma, broke up the dominion of the Nabataean
kings, and constituted the Roman province of
Arabia, while Damascus was added to Syria. For
the whole region the change was epoch-making.
1 The tendency to acquire these domains for civilisation and
specially for Hellenism was only heightened by the fact that the
Roman government took upon itself the work. The Hellenism
of the East . . . was a church militant, a thoroughly conquering
power pushing its way in a political, religious, economic, and
literary point of view ' (Mommsen, op. cit. ii. 152).
Under the strong new regime the desert tribes were
for the first and only time brought under control,
with the result that no small part of ' the desert '
was changed into ' the sown. ' Home won the
nomads to her service and fastened them down in
defence of the border they had otherwise fretted
and broken. . . . Behind this Roman bulwark there
grew up a curious, a unique civilisation talking
Greek, imitating Rome, but at heart Semitic
(G. A. Smith, HGHL, London, 1894, p. 627).
LITERATURB. E. Schiirer, HJP i. ii. 845 ff. ; J. Eating:,
Nabataische Inschriften aut Arabten, Berlin, 1885 ; H. Vincent,
Leg Arabea en Syrie, Paris, 1907 ; G. A. Cooke, North-Semitic
Inscriptions, London, 1903 ; and the art. ' Arabs (Ancient),' by
Th. Noldeke, in ERE L 659. JAMES STBAHAN.
ARAMAIC. See LANGUAGE.
ARATUS. See QUOTATIONS.
ARCHANGEL. See ANGEL.
ARCHIPPUS ("Apx"nros). An office-bearer of
the Apostolic Church referred to in Col 4 17 as exer-
cising a ministry 'in the Lord,' .. in fellowship
with, and in the service of, Christ. He is addressed
by St. Paul as ' fellow-soldier ' a designation pos-
sibly occasioned by some special service in which the
two had been engaged together during St. Paul's
three years' abode at Ephesus, where the Apostle
had severe conflicts with assailants (1 Co 15 82 ).
More probably, however, the expression refers to
the general fellowship of the two men in evangel-
istic work (cf. Ph 2 2 ). The military figure may
have been suggested by the Apostle's environment
Archippus may have been a presbyter bishop, a
leading deacon, an evangelist, or a prominent
teacher at the time when St. Paul wrote. From
Philem 2 he appears to have been a member of
Philemon's household, and he is regarded by most
commentators (after Theodore of Mopsuestia) as
his son. Accordingly, it is generally supposed
(after Chrysostom) that Archippus was an office-
bearer of the Colossian Church. Against this
inference Lightfoot adduces (1) the mention of
Archippus in Col. immediately after a reference to
Laodicea ; (2) the alleged unlikelihood of Archippus
being addressed in Col 4 17 indirectly instead of
directly, if he were himself an official of the Church
to which St. Paul was writing; (3) the tradition
(embodied in the Apost. Constitutions, vii. 46) that
Archippus became ' bishop,' or presiding presbyter,
of Laodicea. Lightfoot infers that Archippus ful-
filled his ministry at Laodicea, which was not many
miles from Colossse : and the mention of him in
Philem. is accounted for by supposing that St.
Paul (through Tychicus, the bearer of his letter to
Philemon) might have suggested that Onesimus
should be employed not in the city where he had
lived as a slave, but in the Laodicean Church under
Archippus. The usual supposition, however, that
Archippus lived with Philemon at Colossse and also
laboured there, appears, on the whole, more natural
The message conveyed to Archippus (' Take heed
[look] to the ministry,' etc. ) is held by Lightfoot
(Colossi 42 f.) to imply a rebuke, as if Archippus
had been remiss or unfaithful in the discharge of
official duty ; and Lightfoot, believing that Archip-
pus held office at Laodicea, compares the admonition
to him with the censure on account of lukewarm-
ness administered in Rev 3 to the angel and church
of the Laodiceans. The message, however, to
Archippus can hardly be regarded as necessarily
suggesting more than that his work was specially
important and arduous, demanding from himself
earnest watchfulness, and from an older 'fellow-
campaigner,' like St. Paul, the incentive of sympa-
thetic exhortation and warning. Theophylact, in
his commentary, supposes that the apostolic
message is purposely made public, instead of being
conveyed in a private letter, not so much to suggest
Archippus' special need of admonition, as to enable
him, without offence, to deal in like manner with
brethren under himself.
In the Greek Martyrology, Archippus appears
(in the Mencea under Nov. 22) as having been
stoned to death, along with Philemon, at Chonae,
near Laodicea. His alleged eventual ' episcopate '
or presiding presbyterate at Laodicea is at least
possible, and even probable ; but the inclusion of
his name in the pseudo-Dorothean list (6th cent.)
of the Seventy of Lk 10 is quite incredible.
LITKRATURB. J. A. Dietelmaicr, de Arehippo, Altdorf, 1751 ;
J. B. Lightfoot, Colossian^, 1879, pp. 42 f., 308 ff. ; see also
Literature under PHILEMON. HENRY COWAN.
AREOPAGITE, AREOPAGUS. In Ac 17 34 the
title ' the Areopagite ' is given to one Dionysius, a
convert to the Christian faith at Athens, imply-
ing that he was a member of the council of the
Areopagus (Ac 17 W AV and RV; v. 22 AV
'Mars' Hill,' RV 'Areopagus'; the RV is correct
in rendering ' Areopagus ' in both places, as it pre-
serves the ambiguity of the original). (a) The
name denominated a rocky eminence N.W. of the
Acropolis at Athens, which was famous in the his-
tory of the city. Between the hill and the Acro-
polis was a narrow declivity, now largely filled in.
On the N.E. the rock is precipitous, and at the foot
of the precipice the worship of the propitiated
Furies as the Eumenides was carried on, so that the
locality was invested with awesome associations.
It is approached from the agora, or market-place,
by an old, worn stairway of sixteen steps, and
90 AREOPAGITE, AKEOPAGUS
upon the top can still be seen the rough, rock-hewn
benches, forming three sides of a square, upon
which the court sat in the open air, in order that
the judges should not be under the same roof as
the accused. (6) The expression was also used of
the court itself (Cicero, ad Att. i. 14. 5; de Nat.
Deor. ii. 74 ; Hep. i. 27). From time immemorial
this court held its meetings on the hill in question,
and was at once the most ancient and most revered
tribunal in the city. In ancient times it had su-
preme authority in both criminal and religious
matters, and its influence, ever tending to become
wider, afi'ected laws and offices, education and mor-
ality. It thus fulfilled the functions of both court
and council. Pericles and his friend Ephialtes (c.
460 B.C.) set themselves to limit the power of the
court (Aristotle, Const. Ath. 25), and it became
largely a criminal court, while religious matters
seem to have been controlled, at least in part, by
the King Archon. But the reforms of Ephialtes
mainly concerned interference in public affairs ;
and the statements of ^Kschylus in the tragedy
Eumenides, which appeared at the time in defence
of the court, appear to be exaggerated. In any
case, in the Roman period it regained its former
powers (Cicero, ad Fam. xiii. 1. 5 ; de Nat. Deor.
ii. 74). As to the origin of the court, according to
popular legend Ares was called before a court of
the twelve gods to answer for the murder of
Halirrhotius (Paus. I. xxviii. 5), but ^Eschylus
(Eum. 685 ff. ) attributes its foundation to Athene.
The questions which arise out of the narrative
of Acts are these : Was St. Paul taken before the
council or to the hill? Or did he appear before
the council sitting in the traditional place ? Was
he in any sense on trial ?
The King Archon held his meetings in the Stoa
Basileios, and it was there that Socrates had been
arraigned on a matter similar to that which exer-
cised the minds of the philosophers in the case
before us. It seems probable that this Stoa became
identified with the discussion of religious questions,
and that, when the council of the Areopagus re-
gained its full powers, it held its meetings here,
reserving its om judgment-seat for cases of murder
(so Curtius, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Berlin,
1894, ii. 528 f., Stadtgesch. von Athen, do. 1891, p.
262 f. ; but Harnack, Acts of the Apostles, Lend,
and N.Y., 1909, p. 108, remarks: 'Curtius' ex-
planation seems to me untenable ' ; see also Cony-
beare, in HDB i. 144). The whole picture, indeed,
is in favour of this view. There is no reason why
the Stoics and Epicureans should have carried
away the Apostle, to an isolated spot. Further,
Ramsay truly remarks : ' The Athenians were, in
many respects, flippant ; but their flippancy was
combined with an intense pride in the national
dignity and the historic glory of the city, which
would have revolted at such an insult as that this
stranger should harangue them about his foreign
deities on the spot where the Athenian elders had
judged the god Ares and the hero Orestes' (St.
Paul the Traveller, Lond. 1895, p. 244). Moreover,
the Apostle's speech was not a philosophical dis-
quisition but rather a popular oration, suited to
the general populace of idle Athenians and dilet-
tante Roman youths whose education was not
considered complete until they had spent some
time in the purlieus of the ancient university. If
the council happened to be sitting, as was evidently
the case, it was a most natural impulse to hurry
the newcomer, who ' babbled ' apparently of two
new deities, Jesus and ' Resurrection ' (for so they
would understand him), to its meeting-place, that
the question might be settled as to whether or not
he was to be allowed to continue. Yet it can
hardly be said that the proceedings were even re-
motely connected with a judicial inquiry. It was
no anakrisis, or preliminary investigation, though
the philosophers may have hoped that something
of the sort would be the outcome. It is of little
importance whether the phrase ' they took him
and brought him ' implies friendly compulsion or
inimical intent. The feelings of the listeners
would be very mixed, and they would quite
naturally be excited by the curious message of the
new preacher. The professing teachers were all
interested in new ideas and yet resented un-
warranted intrusion. The council was in the habit
of making pronouncements on the subject of new
religious cycles of thought, and it was no doubt
felt that, if their attention was drawn to the sub-
ject, official proceedings would follow. It is evident
that there was much in the address of St. Paul that
awoke sympathy in his audience. One member of
the council, at least, was converted, to wit, Diony-
sius. There may have been others. But the
general effect produced by the mention of the
Resurrection was contempt. A few were ready to
hear more on the subject, possibly a minority sug-
gested a more formal examination ; but the result
of the hearing, as of the visit, outwardly and
visibly, was failure. The council of the Areopagus
made judicial procedure impossible, by refusing to
treat the matter seriously, and the Apostle left
them, a disappointed, ana no doubt a somewhat
LITERATURE. Besides the authors quoted, see W. M.
Ramsay, in Expositor, 6th ser. ii.  209, 261, also x.  ;
E. Renan, St. Paul, Eng. tr. 1890, p. 193 f. ; A. C. McGiffert,
History of the Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1897, p. 257 ff. ; EBr,
art. 'Areopagus'; R. J. Knowling, in EGT ii. [London, 1900]
368 f. F. W. WOKSLEY.
ARETAS CANTOS, Arab, garitha). The Gr.
form of a name borne by several rulers of the Na-
bataean Arabs, whose capital was Petra in Arabia.
1. The first known to history, ' Aretas, prince of
the Arabians,' is said to have had the fugitive high-
priest Jason shut up at his court (2 Mac 5 8 ; the
Gr. text is doubtful). His designation as ' prince '
(rtfpaj'j'os) indicates that the hereditary chieftain of
the tribe had not yet assumed the dignity of king-
ship. The royal dynasty was founded by Erotimus
about 110-100 B.C., when the Greek kings of Syria
and Egypt had lost so much of their power, ' ut
adsiduis proeliis consumpti in contemptum finiti-
morum venerint praedaeque Arabum genti, im-
belli an tea, fuermt* (Trog. Pomp. ap. Justin.,
xxxix. 5. 5-6).
2. The second Aretas, called 6 'A.pdf3uv j3cwt\e<5s, is
mentioned by Josephus (Ant. XIII. xiii. 3) in con-
nexion with the siege of Gaza by Alexander Jan-
nseus in 96 B.C.
3. Aretas ill., who reigned from about 85 to 60
B.C.,is known as ' Aretas the Philhellene,'this be'ng
the superscription of the earliest Nabatsean coins
that are known. Under him the mountain fortress
of Petra began to assume the aspect of a Hellenistic
city, and the Nabateean sway was extended as far
as Damascus. He incurred the displeasure of the
Romans by interfering in the quarrel of Hyrcanus
and Aristobulus, but the war which Scaurus waged
against him left his power unbroken (Ant. XIV. v.
i. ; BJ I. viii. 1). He could not, however, prevent
Lollius and Metellus from taking possession of
Damascus (Ant. XIV. ii. 3 ; BJl. vi. 1), which there-
after was permanently under the suzerainty of
4. Aretaslv.,Philopatris,thelastand best-known,
had a long and successful reign (c. 9 B.C.-A.D. 40).
He was originally called ./Eneas, but on coming to
the throne he assumed the favourite name of the
Nabatsean kings. He soon found it necessary to
ingratiate himself with Rome.
Augustus ' was angry that Aretas had not sent to him first
before he took the kingdom ; yet did .^Eneas send an epistlt
and presents to Caesar, and a crown of gold of the weight of
many talents.' . . . The Emperor ' admitted Aretas's ambassa-
dors, and after he had just reproved him for nis rashness in
not waiting till he had received the kingdom from him, he
accepted his presents, and confirmed him in the government '
(Jos. Ant. xvi. ix. 4, x. 9).
This Aretas' daughter became the wife of Herod
Antipas, who divorced her in order to marry
Herodias (Mk 6 17 ). Border disputes gave the in-
jured father an opportunity of revenge. Again
acting, at this new juncture, without consulting
Eome, he attacked and defeated Antipas (A.D. 28) ;
and again fortune smiled on his daring disregard
of consequences. The belated expedition which
Vitellius, governor of Syria, at Tiberius' command,
led against Petra, had only got as far as Jerusalem,
when the tidings of the Emperor's death (A.D. 37)
caused it to be abandoned.
There is circumstantial evidence, thoughperhaps
too slender to be quite convincing, that Tiberius'
successor Caligula favoured the cause of Aretas.
St. Paul was converted probably about A.D. 36 (so
Turner), and, some time after, the Jews of Da-
mascus conspired to kill him (Ac 9 m ). In recall-
ing this fact he mentions a detail (2 Co II 82 ) which
the writer of Acts omits, namely, that it was the
governor (tdvdpxrp) under Aretas the king who
doubtless at the instigation of the Jews guarded
the city to take him. The question is thus raised
when and how Aretas became overlord of Damascus.
It is inconceivable either that he captured the city
in face of the Roman legions in Syria, or that
Tiberius, who in the end of his reign was strongly
hostile, ceded it to him. But it is probable that
Caligula favoured the enemy of Herod Antipas.
One of his first imperial acts was to give the
tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias to Agrippa (Ant.
xvill. vi. 10), and he may at the same time have
given Damascus to Aretas as a peace-offering. It
was better policy to befriend than to crush the
brave Nabatreans. Antipas was ultimately de-
posed and banished in 39.
It was only for a short time, however, that Rome
relaxed her direct hold upon the old Syrian capital.
There are Damascene coins with the figure of
Tiberius down to A.D. 34, and the fact that none
has been found with the image of Caius or Claud-
ius is significant of a change of regime ; but the
image of Nero appears from 62 onwards. To the
view of Marquardt (Bom. Staatsverwaltung, 1885,
i. 405) and Mommsen (Provinces 3 , 1909, li. 149),
based on 2 Co II 32 , that Damascus was continuously
in subjection to the Nabatsean kings from the be-
ginning of the Roman period down to A.D. 106,
there are the strongest objections (see Schiirer, HJP
I. ii. 354). Cf. art. ARABIA.
More coins and inscriptions date from the time
of Aretas rv. than from any Nabataean reign.
While the standing title of Aretas ill. was *t\A-
Xiyvoj, that which the last chose for himself was Dm
noy, Lover of his people.' He set country above
culture ; he was a Nabatsean patriot first and a
Hellenist afterwards. It was probably this success-
ful reign that Josephus haid in view when he
\vrote of the extension of the Nabataean king-
dom from the Euphrates to the Red Sea (Ant. I.
LITERATURE. In addition to the authorities cited in the body
of the art., see Literature appended to art. ARABIA, and P.
Ewald, art. 'Aretas,' in PRE*. JAMES STRAHAN.
ARISTARCHUS ('Apforapxos). A Macedonian
Christian and a native of Thessalonica who became
one of the companions of St. Paul on his third
missionary journey. He is first mentioned on the
occasion of the riot in Ephesus, where along with
another companion of the Apostle named Gaius
(q.v.), probably of Derbe, he was rushed by the
excited multitude into the theatre (Ac 19 29 ). He
seems to have been an influential member of the
Church of Thessalonica, and was deputed along
with Secundus (q.v.) to convey the contributions of
the Church to Jerusalem (Ac 20 4 ). He was thus
present in the city at the time of St. Paul's arrest,
and seems to have remained in Syria during the two
years of the Apostle's imprisonment in Coesarea,
for we find him embarking with the prisoner on
the ship bound for the West (Ac 27 2 ). It is not
certain that he accompanied St. Paul to Rome.
He may, as Lightfoot supposes (Phil.* 34), have dis-
embarked at Myra (Ac 27 5 ). On the other hand,
Ramsay (St. Paul?, 316) believes that both Aris-
tarchus and St. Luke accompanied the Apostle on
the voyage as his personal slaves. In any case Aris-
tarchus was present in Rome soon after St. Paul's
arrival, and it is not impossible that he came later
with contributions from the Philippian Church to
the Apostle. When the Epistles to the Colossians
and to Philemon were written, Aristarchus was
with the Apostle in Rome. In the former (Col 4 10 )
he is called the 'fellow-prisoner* (trwcuxAuiXwTos)
of the writer, and we find the same term, which
usually indicates physical restraint, applied to
Epaphras (q.v.) in Philem 23 . While the idea in
the Apostle s mind may be that Aristarchus, like
himself, was taken captive by Jesus Christ, it is
more probable that Aristarchus shared St. Paul's
prison in Rome, either as a suspected friend of the
prisoner or voluntarily as the Apostle's slave a
position which he and Epaphras may have taken
alternately. In Philem 84 he is called 'fellow-
labourer' of the writer. Nothing is known of his
subsequent history. According to tradition he
suffered martyrdom under Nero.
LITERATURE. W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller 2,
London, 1897, pp. 279, 316; J. B. Lightfoot, Colossians and
Philemon*, do. 1879, p. 236, Philippiant*, do. 1878, p. 34 ; artt.
in HDB and in EBi ; R. J. Knowling, in EGT ii.  414.
W. F. BOYD.
ARISTOBULUS ('AptoT<5j3ovXoy, a Greek name
frequently adopted by Romans and Jews, and
borne by several members of the Maccabsean and
Herodian families). In Ro 16 10 St. Paul salutes
' them which are of the household of Aristobulus '
(TOI)J tic T&V 'Aptoro/SotfXoi;), i.e. the Christians in his
familia or establishment of freedmen and slaves
(perhaps known as Aristobuliani, for which the
Greek phrase would be equivalent). Lightfoot
thinks that Aristobulus was a grandson of Herod
the Great, and brother of Agrippa and Herod.
This Aristobulus lived and died in Rome in a
private station (see Jos. BJ II. xi. 6, Ant. XX. i.
2). After his death it is supposed that his ' house-
hold ' passed over to the Emperor, but retained the
name of their former master. The ' household of
Aristobnlus' would naturally include many Ori-
entals and Jews, and therefore probably some
Christians. The name Herodion (q.v.), which
immediately follows, suggests a connexion with
the Herodian dynasty. If Lightfoot is right, the
reference to the ' household of Aristobulus ' is
strong evidence for the Roman destination of
these salutations. The Christians in the ' house-
hold' would naturally form one of the distinct
communities of which the Church at Rome was
apparently made up (cf. v. 11 and the phrases in
vv. 8 - 18 ). We have no knowledge as to whether the