Archippus (Hastings' Dictionary)

Archippus is mentioned only twice in NT. The short letter sent by St. Patil to Philemon is addressed not only to Philemon and Apphia, but also to 'A., our fellow-soldier,' as well as to the church in Philemon's house (v.-). Tin- position here assigned to A., between the mention of Philemon and that of the church in his house, renders it highly probable that he was, if not a near relative (perhaps a son or brother), at any rate one belonging to the household circle.

' Fellow- soldier ' is doubtless applied to him (as to Epa- phroditus, Ph 2" ; cf. also Ph 4-', 2 Ti 2^) as enduring conflict in the service of the Church or the gospel, probably in some official position ; but what that position was, we have no means of knowing. Nor is much more light supplied by the other passage (Col 4") which speaks of his ' ministry (SiaKoviav) in the Lord.'

The term SiuKOfia need not necessarily be taken in its technical sense of the otfice of deacon, or In that of bishop or presbyter or evangelist ; it may denote any service, but the adjunct tV Kupiw defines it as speciallj' undertaken for the Church by one ' living and acting in the Lord under the sense of holy obligation ' (Meyer). The form of the admoni- tion has been thought to imply some misgiving or doubt or censui'e, as though A.

were still yoimg or subordinate, weak or too indulgent, or inclined to be remiss, and so in special need of warning or stimulus; but it need not convey more than that the ' service ' was a difficult one, in which he might well be strengthened by the encouragement of the Church acting on the apostle's me.ssage. The suggestion of Lightfoot, among others, that A.

was a Laodicean teacher, on the ground that 4" is joined by Kai to the context In which the Laodicean Church is spoken of, seems improbable ; for, apart from other difficulties, why should St. Paul have taken tins roundabout way of reaching A. (if not himself a Colosslan) through a strange church, when he was almost simultaneously addressing him directly (Philem-)? There seems little historical basis for the tradition that A.

was one of the 70 disciples, who became bishop of Laodicea and suffered martyrdom at Chonae. William P. Dicksox. ARCHITE Cr"!').— The native of a town (Erech?, not Archi as in AV of Jos 10-) situated on the north border of Benjamin, probably the modern '.4iK 'Arilc, west of Bethel. Hushal, David's friend (2 S 15^-), belonged to this town. See S \VP vol. iii. sheet xvil. C. R. CosDER. ••ARCHITECTURE.— The influences which formed the architecture of the Hebrews were very diverse.

Besides the highly developetl structures of Egypt and Babylon, there was the native .\morlte builcliuL;, and the starting-point of the people themselves from a nomadic life. The great tent of tlie taber- nacle, witli its chamber of wood, must have been the ideal type for a long period to the Hebrews. It is, according to Fergusson's rendering of it (see TAliKUX.viLE), strictly in accord with what may be seen as the system of development from the Bedawi tent at present.

A widespread low tent is pitched, fencing of reeds or piles of stone is built around it to make a shelter from storms ; the tent is then carried out over the shelter walls, or else enclosed in a courtyard, and settlements arc thus formed which are compounded of walling for the sides and tent for the covering. Such seems to have been the principle of the tabernacle ; and long after the entrance into Pal. the Hebrews, in Cfiarlejt .^r-rihrier'.': .

^ont aECHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE 143 the south at least, continued to depend on tents and skins, instead of building and pottery. The closely inhabited region south of Hebron, where at every mile or two a name of an ()T village is to be found, is absolutely bare of any early building, and not a fragment of .Jewish pottery is to be found there. This shows that the people ret;iined the nomadic type of life although settled on the land.

The Amorite buildiups of brick were massive and imposing to a desert people: 'cities great, and fenced up to heaven ' (Ut 1-*). The thick walls of well-laid brickwork, as seen at Tell Ilesy, were very strong defences, and quite wide enough to have considerable houses built upon the wall (Jos 2"). Woodwork was largely u.sed (Jos 8-') ; but probably for rooting, as no trace of vaulted brick roofs has yet been found.

This system of mud- brick building continued to be used throughout the Jewish history, as is seen at Tell Hesy, and alluded to by Kzekiel (13'"-'-); and such building was probably in type, as well as material, a con- tinuation of the Amorite style. What the external appearance of these buildings was, is shown by the figures of forts conquered by the Egyptians in Syria, and represented on the monuments.

High blank walls gave no opening or hold for an enemy ; pilasters and towers strengthened the faces and corners of the forts ; and projecting chambers overhanging the more important points enabled the defenders to prevent any sapping or scaling. The gateway was a projecting building in front of the entrance, a plan which enabled the defenders to make it a death trap to any attacking party ; for on forcing the outer gate the besiegers would be confined in a narrow space exposed to cea.

seless attack overhead. Defence at this age seems to have been far superior to attack ; and without a siege train such forts could be reduced only by stratagem (as at Ai) or by starvation.

When stone building was required, it appears to have been probably of masonry hewn to tit on the spot, or at least of irregular courses ; for the Jews were astonished at proper construction, with hewn stone all cut regularly in advance, and they remark when neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron was heard in the house while it was in building (1 K G").

The mechanical Phojnicians api)ear to have planned the temple entirely in advance, as the Kgyptians did in early times, marking each stone with its place ; Hiram's builders and the Gebalites being responsible for this work (1 Iv 6"). The stone was sawn with saws, a.s in the best Kgyp. work (1 K 7''). The cause of tins I'luen. superiority in stonework is probably from their occupying a rocky coast where brick is less attiiinable, and a wet coast where stone is the more needful.

Of the architectural forms very little is known directly. The only carvings yet seen, which are certaiidy of the period of the monarchy, are the slabs of Tell He.sy. There a cavetto cornice, like the usual Kgy)). form of the nineteenth dynasty, is carved on a thin slab, which was placed over a doorway as a lintel. From the want of solidity, and the curve of the back, manifestly following that of the face, it is evident that this wa.

s not a structural, but only an ornamental member ; like the similar thin stone lintels attached by (wooden?) pegs to the brick wall behind, in the palace of Akhenaten at Tel el-Amariia. What the real nature of the door-crown wa.s has not been lu'cserved ; it may have been of wood, but looking to Kgyp. usage it is more likely to have been an arch of brickwork, like the walls. The sides of the doorways have also been pre- served, though reversed in re-usc in a later building.

They are decorated with pilasters, which shon- the form of the columns in use at that age. A rounded low stone base supported the stout and clumsy ccluirn, which is even represented as equal in iliameter to the base. At least the ideal was very different from that of the Egyp., whose column was far narrower than its base. The column diminished greatly upward, and was capped at the top by a volute of Ionic nature.

In the stonework this volute seems to imitate a coil of metal ; but the whole design appears to come from a decorating of vrooden posts with rams' horns, a similar idea to the bucrania in tir. use. On Assyr. monuments, capitals are represented which have been considered to foreshadow the Ionic ; but the horn form (if it ever existed in these) has been lost, whereas in the earlier Jewish example, which is probably Solo- monic, the coil is nmch more isolated and pronounced.

These pilasters show by their shortness that a dado existed below them, and was an importjtnt feature in the building ; but no stonework of a dado has been preserved. A peculiar feature of Jewish design is the duplication of the doorway. In the rock tombs there is a general tendency to a double entrance ; sometimes only carried out in the porch, where a pillar will stand directly in front of the doorway.

The same duplication is seen in the building at Tell Hesy in which the stone slabs were re-used, as above described : the object of the building is not known, l)ui on three sides, if not four, it had two doors. As these doors required to be .secured by locks or fastenings, the taste for double entrances must have been very strong. Such a duplication occurs both in Assyr. and Persian buildings, and belongs therefore to an established system.

Of other ornament the drafting of the walls was the most prominent, and is likewise known in Persia. The edges of the stones were dressed to a straight line with flat faces, while the middle of each external face was occupied by a projecting boss. This boss was sometimes left (piite rough — like the rusticated work of the Pitti palace ; but usually it was dressed flat, thus leaving the joint lines recessed half an inch to .

3 inches from the main face of the wall, according to the scale of the work. The great stones of the temple substructure are the best known example of this work, but they are not certainly older than Herod. On a smaller scale this same work was found in the lower courses of a door of the fortress at Tell Hesy, which takes it back to the nuddle of the Jewish monaiihy ; and from the persistence of the type to the present day it appears to truly belong to tlio country.

Of the plans of buildings we know even less than of the decoration. The temple, as Fergusson has pointed out, was simply a doubling of the dimensions of the tabernacle, and we may carry the parallel further. The great tent pitched over the tabernacle sidi'S extended beyond them, and the covered space thus left around the tabernacle would doubtless be used for subsidiary purposes.

This space was reproduced in the temple as a chain of chambers all round the sides, a construction which Wius not favourable to any grand treatment of the exterior. The plan, therefore, was ruled by its develupment from the previous .sacred )ilace. In the later temple of Ilejod the great porch was the jnost striking feature, and accords in t.i.ste with the enormous pmlieoes of the Herodian rock- tombs at .lernsalem, which are often much larger than the tomb inside the rock.

Minor buildings of the age of the monarchy have been found in the only excavations yet made in a city, — those at 'I'ell Ilesy. One hnilding already mentioned was square, witli two doors on each side. Another — jjerhaps a barrack — was a long hall witl) two rows 14i ARCTURUS ARETAS of columns from end ■ to end. Until further excavations may reveal more examples, we can glean but little about tlie usual arrangements of Jewish architecture. W. M. Flindeus Petkie.