Architecture

Smith's Bible Dictionary

Architecture. The book of Genesis,  Genesis 4:17;  Genesis 4:20;  Genesis 4:22, appears to divide mankind into two great characteristic sections, namely, the "dwellers in tents" and the "dwellers in cities." To the race of Shem is attributed  Genesis 10:11-12;  Genesis 10:22;  Genesis 11:2-9, the foundation of those cities in the plain of Shinar, Babylon Nineveh and others.

The Israelites were by occupation, shepherds, and by habit, dwellers in tents.  Genesis 47:3. They had, therefore, originally, speaking properly, no architecture. From the time of the occupation of Canaan, they became dwellers in towns and in houses of stone.  Leviticus 14:34;  Leviticus 14:45;  1 Kings 7:10.

The peaceful reign and vast wealth of Solomon gave great impulse to architecture; for, besides the Temple and his other great works, he built fortresses and cities in various places, among which Baalath and Tadmor are in all probability represented by Baalbec and Palmyra.

But the reigns of Herod and his successors were especially remarkable for their great architectural works. Not only was the Temple restored, but the fortifications and other public buildings of Jerusalem were enlarged and embellished.  Luke 21:5. The town of Caesarea was built on the site of Strato's Tower; Samaria was enlarged, and received the name of Sebaste.

Of the original splendor of these great works, no doubt can be entertained; but of their style and appearance, we can only conjecture that they were formed on Greek and Roman models. The enormous stones employed by the Assyrian Persepolitan and Egyptian buildings find a parallel in the substructions of Baalbec and in the huge blocks which still remain at Jerusalem, relics of the buildings either of Solomon or of Herod.

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Architecture . The Hebrews never developed a native style of architecture. The genius of the people lay elsewhere. Alike in civil, religious, and funerary architecture, they were content to follow alien models. David’s palace in his new capital was probably the first building since the conquest which gave scope for architectural display, and in this case workmen, plans, and decorative materials were all PhÅ“nician (  2 Samuel 5:11 ). The palace and temple of Solomon were likewise the work of PhÅ“nician architects, and the former doubtless supplied the model for the more ambitious private buildings under the monarchy. Late Egyptian influence has been traced in the tombs of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, but the prevailing influence from the beginning of the 3rd cent. onwards was undoubtedly Greek (cf.   Malachi 1:14  Malachi 1:14 , 2Ma 4:12 ). The many magnificent buildings of Herod, for example, including the colonnades and gates of the Temple, were entirely built in the prevailing Græco-Roman style. When the excavations at Gezer, where Mr. Macalister claims to have discovered, with much else of architectural interest, the palace of Simon Maccabæus ( 1Ma 13:48 ), Taanach, and Megiddo are finished and the results published in final form, and still more when other historical sites, such as Samaria (cf.   Amos 3:15 ,   1 Kings 22:39 ), shall have been similarly laid bare, it may be possible to write a history of Palestinian, including pre-Israelite or Amorite architecture, but that day is not yet. See, further, Fortification, Palace, Temple, Tomb.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

Webster's Dictionary

(1): (n.) Construction, in a more general sense; frame or structure; workmanship.

(2): (n.) The art or science of building; especially, the art of building houses, churches, bridges, and other structures, for the purposes of civil life; - often called civil architecture.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

(Lat. architectura, from Gr. Ἀρχιτέκτων , a Master Builder), though usually ranked as a fine art, is not purely such in the sense that painting, sculpture, music, and poetry are, but must be ranked rather as an applied art. Buildings erected for dwelling, manufacture, merchandise, public business, education, worship, burial, or defense, serve, first and primarily, their practical purposes. In so far as reference is had to the mathematical and physical principles of construction, the choice of material, and the perfect adaptation of the building to its uses, the edifice is a Scientific achievement, and from this standpoint architecture is a science. In so far as the laws of taste and the power of the imagination are applied to the grouping of the masses, and the invention and distribution of the ornamentation, the edifice is a work of art, and, from this aesthetic stand- point, architecture is a fine art. Embodying thus the material and spiritual wants of an age or people with its knowledge of the resources of nature and the power of its imagination, the history of architecture is a most important element in the history of civilization. The genius of a great architect, though largely controlled by the object of the building, the materials at his command, and other considerations of site, country, and climate, and especially by the prevailing styles and tastes, will always be stamped upon his works, and give them a marked individuality. Though no monuments remain of their earliest history, architecture is generally supposed to have existed as a fine art before the other formative arts of painting and sculpture.

I. Ancient Architecture. — This period extends from the earliest times to about the time of Constantine the Great, when Christianity took the place of Paganism as the controlling spirit in architecture.

1. Egyptian. — The earliest authenticated monuments of architecture are to be found in Egypt, where were developed indeed the germs of all the arts. Of the other styles we can trace the rise, culmination, and decadence. Of the rise of Egyptian art we know nothing, but we are placed suddenly face to face with the Pyramids of Gizeh, the Sphinx, and other works, all executed in true taste, and with so great a degree of scientific knowledge as to indicate a long period of anterior development. This first period (in the fourth dynasty) excelled all later periods in some elements of design, though the second (in the twelfth dynasty) gave the column and other elements, all of which were moulded together, and brought to the highest execution and finish in the third period (in the eighteenth dynasty). Egyptian architecture, in many points, such as the majestic disposition of the masses, the sublime massiveness and durability of its walls, the long vistas through successive courts and lines of columns and sphinxes, the predominance of the interior over exterior ornament, the universal use of color, the subordination of sculpture and painting to architectonic effects, the symbolism of its ornaments and the monumental character of its edifices, was the most perfect the world has yet seen. (See Wilkinson, Architecture of the Ancient Egyptians, Lond. 1856.) The Egyptian public edifices consisted of temples, palaces, tombs, and aqueducts. The earliest Temples and Tombs were doubtless of wood, or were excavated from the solid rock. These two styles of building gave a typical character to the later temples, built mostly aboveground and of cut stone. The temple was usually built upon a high, often a raised foundation, above the flow of the high waters of the Nile. The entranceway was paved with broad stones, and often led from the tomb of a deceased king. This entrance opened on the side facing the Nile to an enclosure surrounded by a massive wall of cut stone, diminishing as it rose, and covered like all the Egyptian walls, as those of temples and tombs, with a broad, simple, spreading cornice. This unbroken massive wall was covered, as were the walls of the temple within, with symbolic paintings of the Egyptian religion, hieroglyphic records of history, or figures of deities and kings. Within the enclosure was the temple, surrounded by rows of trees, and often with an artificial basin of water at one side. From the single opening of the entrance in the wall the way led between two rows of colossal sphinxes or rams to the majestic facade of the temple. Before the door rose two lofty obelisks or sat two colossal figures, and banners floated from high poles at their side. The walls within and without, and the columns, even when made of costly and polished stones, were covered with religious paintings or hieroglyphics. Theidoor opened to a court within, surrounded by a covered passage-way (sometimes a second similar court followed); into these were admitted the awestruck multitude. Into the series of chambers extending back of the courts, covered by stone roofing and lighted by small openings from above, were admitted only priests or sacred persons. In the last chamber was the "sanctum sanctorum," containing the image of the deity. The columns of the Egyptian architecture are of three typical kinds, emblematic of the papyrus, the lotus, and the palm — the fluting, when used, originating in the columns of the under-ground temples. The temples varied in size, and the general disposition of the courts and chambers, often having the rear half cut out of the living rock. (See Temple).

The Pyramids, or tombs of the kings, faced the four cardinal points of the compass. They were first built small, and then enlarged by successive coverings, as the length and prosperity of the reigns of the monarchs permitted. They were built in terraces, and then were filled out and faced with stone, commencing from the upper terrace and going downward. The interiors of the Pyramids and of the successive layers were often filled with brick or loose stone, but the facing was of hard, dressed, often of polished stone. Examination has shown that the interior pyramid was often made with much more care than the subsequent facings. There was only one small chamber (with a narrow passage leading to it), and containing a sealed massive stone sarcophagus, holding the embalmed body of the monarch. Of large and small pyramids there are found in Lower Egypt, where they mostly occur, sixty-seven, counting the finished and unfinished, and those in the different degrees of preservation. They reach from Cairo to Fayoum, along the left shore of the Nile, a distance of about five miles. They are arranged in five principal groups, the chief one being that of Gizeh, situated near ancient Memphis, the seat of the earliest Egyptian monarchy. The largest of them, that of Cheops, is now 450 ft. high, and 746 ft. square at the base. All the great pyramids were built between the second and fifth dynasties. The later pyramids were built mostly of brick, and were much smaller, as were also those of Upper Egypt, (See Ethiopia), near Meroe, being built about 700 B.C. The private tombs were mostly cut in the living rock, and were often decorated with great taste and labor. (See Pyramid).

The villas of the Egyptians were of great extent, and contained spacious gardens watered by canals communicating with the Nile. The house itself was sometimes ornamented with propylea and obelisks, like the temples; it is even possible that part of the building may have been consecrated to religious purposes, as the chapels of other countries, since we find (in ancient paintings of them) a priest engaged in presenting offerings at the door of the inner chambers; and, indeed, were it not for the presence of the women, the form of the garden, and the style of the porch, we should feel disposed to consider it a temple rather than a place of abode. The entrances. of large villas were generally through folding gates, standing between lofty towers, as at the courts of temples, with a small door at each side; and others had merely folding gates, with the jambs surmounted by a cornice. One general wall of circuit extended round the premises, but the courts of the house, the garden, the offices, and all the other parts of the villa had each their separate enclosure. The walls were usually built of crude brick, and when in damp places, or within reach of the inundation, the lower part was strengthened by a basement of stone. They were sometimes ornamented with panels and grooved lines, generally stuccoed, and the summit was crowned either with Egyptian battlements, the usual cornice, a row of spikes in imitation of spear-heads, or with some fancy ornament. The plans of the villas varied according to circumstances, but their general arrangement is sufficiently explained by the paintings. They were surrounded by a high wall, about the middle of which was the main or front entrance, with one central and two side gates, leading to an open walk shaded by rows of trees. Here were spacious tanks of water, facing the doors of the right and left wings of the house, between which an avenue led from the main entrance to what may be called the center of the mansion. After passing the outer door of the right wing, you entered an open court, with trees, extending quite round a nucleus of inner apartments, and having a back entrance communicating with the garden. On the right and left of this court were six or more store-rooms, a small receiving or waiting room at two of the corners, and at the other end the staircases which led to the upper story. Both of the inner facades were furnished with a corridor, supported on columns, with similar towers and gateways. The interior of this wing consisted of twelve rooms, two outer and one center court, communicating by folding gates; and on either side of this last was the main entrance to the rooms on the ground floor, and to the staircases leading to the upper story. At the back were three long rooms, and a gateway opening on the garden, which, besides flowers, contained a variety of trees, a summer-house, and a large tank of water. The arrangement of the left wing was different. The front gate led to an open court, extending the whole breadth of the facade of the building, and backed by the wall of the inner part. Central and lateral doors thence communicated with another court, surrounded on three fides by a set of rooms, and behind it was a corridor, upon which several other chambers opened. This wing had no back entrance, and, standing isolated, the outer court extended entirely round it; and a succession of doorways communicated from the court with different sections of the center of the house, where the rooms, disposed, like those already described, around passages and corridors, served partly as sitting apartments and partly as store-rooms. (See Wilkinson's Anc, Eg. abridgm. 1:24 sq.) (See Building).

2. The remains of Persian And Assyrian palaces are important, as suggesting what may have been the predominant features of the palaces of David, and especially Solomon, although this style was doubtless somewhat modified by the Syrian method of architecture, which was probably more lofty, with several stories, quadrangular, and with flat roofs. In Mr. Fergusson's work (The Palaces of Ninevah and Persepolis Restored, Lond. 1851) may be found the latest and most ingenious theory on this subject, with plans and elevations giving a tangible form to his conclusions. The scarcity of wood in the East must have had great effect in architectural style; but stone being abundant in Palestine, there was no occasion for the immense piles and thick walls of sunburnt brick which formed so distinguishing a feature in Assyrian structures. According to Mr. Fergusson, the ground story alone was faced with stone, the upper story being formed upon a system of beams supported by pillars, and enclosed by a high mud wall (see the Jour. of Sac. Lit. Jan. 1852, p. 422-433). On the numerous points of resemblance between the Assyrian and Jewish palaces, see Layard's Nineveh, 2d ser. p. 641 sq. (See Assyria).

3. The specimens of the Indian styles are of doubtful date, yet the most remarkable were probably erected about one thousand years B.C. They are exclusively Brahminical and Buddhist temples and pagodas. Some of the Brahminical temples are excavations in the rocks, but not closed like the Egyptians, and have columns cut out of the rock without rules or uniformity (e.g. the temple of Ellora and Elephanta); others are provided with cells, with cupolas or pyramidal ceilings, and supported by figures of animals (Kailassa of Ellora). The Buddhist temples are also underground, but closed, and in the shape of a long parallelogram; they have a double row of pillars, a vault resembling the interior of a hollow cylinder, and end in a semicircular recess containing the divinity in the form of a soap-bubble (Dagoss), as in the temple of Wiswakarna at Ellora. The pagodas are built aboveground, generally pyramidal, and terminated by a cupola (e.g. Madura, Bramnbana of Java). The Indian architecture approaches closely to the Persian and the Assyrian, as exemplified in Persepolis, Nineveh, and Babylon; and also, at a later time, to the Chinese, which adopted the pagoda style in their turrets, but replaced the cupola by a projecting angular roof ornamented with bells (e.g. the porcelain tower at Nankin). But it is with the Egyptian style that the Israelite is connected, as exemplified in Solomon's Temple (see article). (See Sleeman's Rambles in India, Lond. 1844.)

Entirely independent of foreign sources, yet resembling the Indo-Chinese styles in its forms, is the Mexican style, especially in its temples (Theocalles), whose form is pyramidal, and of which remarkable remains are yet to be found in Testchuakan, Papantla, Eholula, etc.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

ar´ki - tek - t̬ū̇r  :

I. General History

1. Plans, Estimates and Measuring

2. Old Testament References

II. Temple and Palace of Solomon

1. Construction and Materials

2. Style

3. Facts

4. Phoenician Designers

III. Conclusions from Actual Remains

1. Defence Walls

2. Streets

3. Absence of the "Grand Manner"

4. Solomonic Detail

5. Temple of Onias

6. Comparison with Maccabean Work

7. Painted Tombs at Marissa

8. Characteristic Feature

IV. Herodian Work

V. Synagogues

VI. Final

Literature

I. General History

The words "architect" and "architecture" do not occur in the Old Testament or the New Testament.

As the greatness of a nation and its social elevation are reflected in the course of architectural development, so is a nation's failure to rise to firm establishment, after victory in war, reflected in the absence of such development. The latter condition was that of the Jews in Palestine; they failed so to establish themselves that their character and aims could find true expression in architecture. The country by reason of its geographical position and its broken territorial character, which exaggerat edition the tribal nature of its inhabitants, did not favor political empire (see HGHL , 10). The great difficulty of the Jews was the preservation of their own integrity. There could be no victorious expeditions to foreign lands to inspire monumental evidence of achievement in arms, nor had they the inspiration. of various gods or saints, to whose glory great and separate buildings might be raised. Their dwellings were, by force of circumstances, unpretentious, and their tombs were of the same character.

1. Plans, Estimates and Measuring

Although in the smaller buildings there is very little evidence of the builder having been governed by a previously drawn plan, there seems no doubt that in larger works a plan was prepared. The Tabernacle was made according to a "pattern" ( Exodus 25:9 ) and Solomon's Temple was also designed and submitted for approval ( 1 Chronicles 28:11 ). Estimated cost was also considered ( Luke 14:28 ). The equivalents to a tape line and foot rule can be identified ( Ezekiel 40:3 ,  Ezekiel 40:5;  Ezekiel 47:3;  Revelation 11:1;  Revelation 21:15 ).

The Israelites arrived in tents, and the walled cities, "great and walled up to heaven" ( Deuteronomy 1:28 the King James Version) which they took and occupied were well fortified, unlovely shelters, covering areas of anything from 12 acres, as at Taanach and Megiddo, to about 23 acres as at Gezer ( Canaan d'après l'exploration récente ). The habitations within the walls were poor structures of mud bricks or rude stone; in many cases they were rock-cut caves. True, the Jews attempted, at the outset of their full pos session, to build in beauty, and made efforts toward greater substantiality, using the best available help; the attempt, however, was doomed to failure. Their most important buildings were their fortifications. The engineering skill displayed in the construction of aqueducts and other water systems was forced out of them by sheer necessity, and proved the existence of a latent constructive power, which they never had sustained opportunity to apply to architecture. In striking contrast is the architecture of the Crusaders. In a comparatively short time of less than 200 years, during the half of which practice in the arts of peace was well-nigh impossible, they stamped their occupation by the erection of an enormous number of great and beautiful buildings, the ruins of which are among the most imposing landmarks in the country.

2. Old Testament References

The often-repeated references to building greatness in the Old Testament, indicate a pride out of all scale with actuality. They tell the story of a long desert pilgrimage during which the Jews, as dwellers in tents, were impressed with the walled cities which, with extraordinary fortitude, they stormed and occupied, and which, with pardonable enthusiasm, they consequently exaggerated, to the glory of God. Although references to buildings in the Old Testament are frequent, they are seldom sufficiently de tailed to convey an idea of their character.

Cain built a city and named it Enoch ( Genesis 4:17 ); his descendant Tubal Cain was "an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron" ( Genesis 4:22 the Revised Version, margin). The description of the plan of the ark (  Genesis 6:14 ) is the first detailed architectural description in the Old Testament. Asshur, a descendant of Ham, built Nineveh and other cities ( Genesis 10:11 ). The tower of Babel was built of "brick for stone and slime for mortar" ( Genesis 11:3 ). In  Exodus 27:9-21 plan, dimensions and construction of the Tabernacle are given.

II. Temple and Palace of Solomon

The most complete architectural reference is the description of the Temple and Palace of Solomon (1 Ki 6; 7) and (Ezek 40; 41). These buildings are fully dealt with under Temple , but a brief note is here necessary, as they are by far the greatest buildings of which there is mention in the Old Testament. It is clear that Solomon had ambition for architectural greatness, and, following the example of David ( 2 Samuel 5:11 ) he employed Phoenician designers and craftsmen to carry out the work.

1. Construction and Materials

It is known that the buildings were of stone, that the chambers surrounding the Temple were three stories high, that the Temple was roofed (presumably flat) with cedar. Fergusson's restoration shows a sloping roof, following the precedent of the sloping roof of the Tabernacle ( Temples of the Jews , 26). The walls and ceilings were lined with cedar, so that "there was no stone seen" ( 1 Kings 6:18 ) within the house. The interior was enriched with carved foliage and cherubim, and in the decorative scheme, gold was freely applied. The description of the exterior is less minutely detailed. Stones were large and, as in the buildings of Egypt, were "sawed with saws" "from foundation to coping" ( 1 Kings 7:9 ), "foundation to the top of walls" (3 Ki  Exodus 7:9 , the Douay Version). The inference therefore is that the masonry was smooth-faced: "no sign of any hammer" ( Ant. , VIII, iii, 2). Windows were "narrow" ( 1 Kings 6:4 the King James Version), repeatedly referred to (  Ezekiel 40:16 ,  Ezekiel 40:26 ). In the interior of the palace, cedar beams were carried on rows of cedar columns, and there were three rows of windows, one row to each story, directly opposite each other. Doors and posts were "square in prospect" ( 1 Kings 7:5 the English Revised Version), i.e. square-headed. In   Ezekiel 40:21 English Versions of the Bible arches are repeatedly mentioned but this is an error of translation. See Arch .

2. Style

In the description, there is very little indication of the style of architecture. The rich nature of the pillars of brass and their "chapiters" ( 1 Kings 7:15 English Versions) point to some hankering after an ornate trabeated style. There is no indication, however, of such a style in constructive stone. No mention is made of a crowning feature of a distinctive kind, not even an eave, simply a "coping." The use of a coping suggests that the walls were topped by parapets, "battlement" (  Deuteronomy 22:8 English Versions), accord ing to the law. Fergusson's restoration shows both cornice and battlements ( Temples of the Jews , Frontispiece).

One can only vaguely conjecture the sources of influence which guided the builders. The description clearly shows that the great columnar architecture of Egypt was not taken as a model, although certain Egyptian characteristics in detail are evident in contemporary work. Probably Phoenician intercourse with the Mediterranean, generally, showed its influence, in which case a comparatively poor result might be inferred.

3. Facts

There remain these facts, namely, that here is described a group of buildings, of comparatively great scale; internally, at least, richly detailed and disposed in a way which shows considerable appreciation of architectural fitness, inspired by ambition for monumental greatness and dedicated, as was all that is great and spontaneous in architecture, to the glory of God. The one great flaw lay in the complete lack of a national constructive ability to respond to the call.

4. Phoenician Designers

The Phoenicians who were employed seem to have been indifferent builders. They took 13 years to build Solomon's house ( 1 Kings 7:1 ) and 7 1/2 years to build the Temple ( 1 Kings 6:38 ), and they, in all probability, found such a great work beyond their powers of adequate conception, more especially as the housement of a strange God was uninspiring. "Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?" ( 2 Samuel 7:5 English Versions) was a command which they were only hired to fulfill.

III. Conclusions from Actual Remains

There are only a very few known examples from which a knowledge of Jewish architecture can be obtained. There are none now standing, and what the spade has uncovered proves little more than a mere building craft of an inferior order. Remains of the period of the monarchy have been uncovered on several sites, notably Jerusalem, Lachish, Tel es Safi (Gath?), Gezer, Taanach, Tel es Mutesellim (Megiddo), Jericho, and these give a general idea of the building craft of the period, but give no evidence of an architectural style. It may, with good reason, be argued that there was no style, but it is too much to conclude that the Jews had no architectural instinct. Ideals were not lacking: "Behold, I will set thy stones in fair colors, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy pinnacles of rubies, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy border of precious stones" ( Isaiah 54:11 ,  Isaiah 54:12 ). Had history been different, Solomon's great example might have laid a foundation from which a national style would have been developed. The arts of peace, however, did not even bud, and the bane of internal and external conflict forced building energy to concentrate itself on fortifications.

1. Defence Walls

Indeed in the great defense walls lies the building history of the Jews. They were hurriedly built and frequently destroyed. Destruction and reparation alternated so consistently, that each successive city within was little more than a temporary housement, at all times subservient to the more important work of defense. Under such conditions nothing flourished, least of all architecture. Building art became a thing of bare temporary utility.

2. Streets

Streets were laid out without method; narrow, tortuous alleys broken into by projections, founded at the will of each individual builder, served as main thoroughfares ( Bible Sidelights , 95; Excavation of Gezer , Vol I, p. 167ff); compare similarity of conditions with streets of Mediterranean city of Philakopi (Journal RIBA , XI, 531). See City . Masonry was usually of rough unhewn stones, unskillfully laid without mortar, and buildings were rarely on the square. Under these conditions the enthusiasm displayed in the description of Solomon's work can be understood.

3. Absence of the "Grand Manner"

In Jerusalem the Temple area was the center of architectural grandeur, and it is possible that it may have inspired building endeavor of another nature in other cities. Palestine has as yet yielded no such parallel. Free areas, where they are found to have existed, seem to have happened so, and do not always coincide in position in successive superincumbent cities. They lay claim to no particular "lay out" and, in all probability, they served as space for the dump heaps of the town refuse or for the pen ning-up of cattle and sheep ( Isaiah 58:12 , "waste places"). Compare the modern city of Es Salt; it gives a fairly good idea of the general appearance of an ancient Jewish city. The use of wooden shafts for porticos and roofs of large covered areas appears to have been prevalent, and these were frequently set in stone sockets which served as bases. Stone columns seem to have been sparingly used; in fact, there is no evidence whatever that a stone columnar style of architecture prevailed in the more important buildings.

4. Solomonic Detail

At Lachish ( Lachish , 23ff) a number of voluted low-relief slabs were discovered which were originally built into the left reveals of the doorways of a building of considerable importance. These slabs were found in conjunction with a molded lintel of Egyptian character. The discovery disclosed the only authentic examples of the architectural detail of the Solomonic period, and is particularly interesting as furnishing, perhaps, the earliest prototype of the Ionic volute. At its best it is a shoddy uncon structive adaptation of exotic features, and if it is to be taken as a key to the work of the period throughout Palestine, there can be nothing great to record.

5. Temple of Onias

When Onias fled to Egypt from the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 154 bc, he gained permission from Ptolemy and Cleopatra to build a temple at Leontopolis like to that at Jerusalem ( Ant. , Xiii , iii, 3). The temple was built in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isa and modeled after the temple of Zerubbabel, but "smaller and poorer" and "resembled a tower." Petrie recovered this temple ( Hyksos , 19ff) on an artificial mound resembling the Temple hill at Jerusalem, raised alongside the Hyksos camp, w here an influential Jewish community had established itself. It is the most complete plan of a Jewish building of monumental character yet discovered. A sort of rude Corinthian detail was used, and certain fragments point to a battlemented treatment, suggestive of Babylonian origin, and to some extent confirming the inference drawn from the description of Solomon's Temple.

6. Comparison with Maccabean Work

Fragments of contemporary architecture of the Maccabean dynasty throughout Palestine show a Greco-Syrian style of considerable dignity and interest, illustrating a readiness to respond to the Hellenizing influence in the arts, which at that time was characterized, in architecture, by a decadent Greek provincialism. The battlemented details, found at Hyksos, seem to indicate the use of a style antedating the Maccabean work, preserving, to some extent, Babylonian traditions.

7. Painted Tombs at Marissa

From the 3rd century bc up to the Christian era architecture shows a consistent Greek origin with local character in detail (see Expl. in Palestine , 18, 19) at Tel Sandahannah and Mareshah ( Painted Tombs of Marissa ). These Marissa tombs show most interesting decorated elevations, with painted architectural detail. The work is Phoenician (93) and the date probably 194 to 119 bc (79). Greek Ionic capitals are used, with wreath enrichments painted on the architrave over the capital, and a deep frieze of painted animals, surmounted by a representation of a "battlement" "coping" ( Deuteronomy 22:8;  1 Kings 7:9 ) remarkably like the details found by Petrie at Hyksos. An interesting detail is the pointed head to the intercolumnar opening, a form which seems to have suggested itself universally to the primitive builder, where the handling of large lintel stones presented a difficulty. They call to mind the heads of Anglo-Saxon openings.

A liking for mural decoration existed throughout the whole Jewish period, as is seen from the small fragments of painted plaster discovered in the various excavated cities, but the decoration on the Marissa tombs is the most complete example, and resembles in many ways the mural decoration at Knossos and Phylakopi.

8. Characteristic Feature

The tomb of Zechariah in the Kedron valley probably belongs to the same date as its neighbor, the tomb of James, which De Vogüé, from the inscription upon it, ascribes to the time of Herod ( Le Temple de Jérusalem , 46). The detail of the crowning part of the entablature is an often-recurring feature in Palestine architecture, appearing as early as the Solomonic era at Lachish. It is characteristically Egyptian, and is also seen at Persepolis (Gwilt's Encyclopedia , 22), and although neither might have been bor rowed from the other, they are not many removes from the common parent. (A curious eastern tradition mentioned ( BD , "Cities," 610) ascribes the building of Persepolis to Solomon.) It was a feature commonly used by the Phoenicians (Rawlinson, Hist. of Phoenician , 142), and was probably introduced by them from Egypt. It seems to have been in favor up to the time of Herod and was abandoned after the wholesale introduction of the classic entablature which in Hellenistic times was only partially incorporated into the prevailing style. The successive variations of the crowning feature of their design is an important factor in tracing the development of Jewish architecture.

IV. Herodian Work

The Temple of Siah (described by De Vogüé in Recovery of Jerusalem , 419ff, and Temples of the Jews , 140ff) is an interesting example of the work of the Herodian period and is more Greek in character than one would expect. Here, local character in carving is strongly marked, foliage and figures being freely used with a certain Assyrian manner which, in spite of loose handling, betrays its origin. In fact this chord of architectural enrichment can be traced through the work of In dia, Assyria, Persia and Syria on to the Byzantine period, when the great cathedral church of Sophia in Constantinople displayed it in the most perfect harmony of all time.

The great building period of Herod need not be detailed. Herod was an Edomite and his architecture partook of the more robust Roman style which dominated Jewish art at a time when the opportunity of national incorporation had passed.

V. Synagogues

This Roman influence, however, remained in Palestine as can be seen by the important remains of synagogues in Galilee of the 3rd century ad (see Fig. 8 from Kerr Berim; Studies in Galilee , chapter vi; Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine , special papers, 294ff). The many remains investigated shed light upon the plan of these post-exilic places of worship, of which there is little or no mention in the Old Testament. See Synagogue . The plans vary considerably in proportion. The example at Meiron measures 90 ft. x 44 ft. 8 inches, while that at Irbid measures 57 ft. 3 inches x 53 ft. ( SWP , special papers, 299). In general arrangement the plans vary very little, consisting usually of five aisles with a triple entrance, most often facing south. The details are richly carved and "a surprising feature common to all is the use of animal figures, especially lions, or lambs and eagles.... In some examples human figures, usually intentionally mutilated, are found" ( Studies in Galilee , 110).

VI. Final

It is probable that future researches may add to our knowledge of early Jewish architecture, but it is doubtful whether there is more to discover than is constituted in the crude and unskilled use of building materials, influenced by limited knowledge of exotic features, which the Jews had neither the time nor the knowledge properly to apply. See City; Building; Fortifications; House; Temple .

Literature

Conder, Survey of Western Palestine  ; Warren, Recovery of Jerusalem  ; Bliss and Dickie, Excavations in Jerusalem , 1894-97; Fergusson, Temple of Jerusalem  ; Masterman, Studies in Galilee  ; Bliss and Macalister, Excavations in Palestine  ; Macalister, Excavations at Gezer  ; Petrie, Excavations at Hyksos  ; Rawlinson, History of Phoen  ; Petrie, Lachish  ; Sellin, Excavations at Taanach  ; Schumacher, Excavations at Tell Mutesellim  ; Macalister, Bible Sidelights  ; Peters and Thierch, Painted Tombs of Marissa .

Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature

It was formerly common to claim for the Hebrews the invention of scientific architecture, and to allege that classic antiquity was indebted to the Temple of Solomon for the principles and many of the details of the art. This statement, however, is totally without foundation.

There has never in fact been any people for whom a peculiar style of architecture could with less probability be claimed than for the Israelites. On leaving Egypt they could only be acquainted with Egyptian art. On entering Canaan they necessarily occupied the buildings of which they had dispossessed the previous inhabitants; and the succeeding generations would naturally erect such buildings as the country previously contained. The architecture of Palestine, and, as such, eventually that of the Jews, had doubtless its own characteristics, by which it was suited to the climate and condition of the country; and in the course of time many improvements would no doubt arise from the causes which usually operate in producing change in any practical art. From the want of historical data and from the total absence of architectural remains, the degree in which these causes operated in imparting a peculiar character to the Jewish architecture cannot now be determined; for the oldest ruins in the country do not ascend beyond the period of the Roman domination. It does, however, seem probable that among the Hebrews architecture was always kept within the limits of a mechanical craft, and never rose to the rank of a fine art. Their usual dwelling-houses differed little from those of other Eastern nations, and we nowhere find anything indicative of exterior embellishment. Splendid edifices, such as the palace of David and the temple of Solomon, were completed by the assistance of Phoenician artists ( 2 Samuel 5:11;  1 Kings 5:6;  1 Kings 5:18;  1 Chronicles 14:1). After the Babylonish exile, the assistance of such foreigners was likewise resorted to for the restoration of the Temple ( Ezra 3:7). From the time of the Maccabean dynasty, the Greek taste began to gain ground, especially under the Herodian princes, and was shown in the structure and embellishment of many towns, baths, colonnades, theaters and castles. The Phoenician style, which seems to have had some affinity with the Egyptian, was not, however, superseded by the Grecian; and even as late as the Mishna, we read of Tyrian windows, Tyrian porches, etc. [HOUSE].

With regard to the instruments used by builders—besides the more common, such as the axe, saw, etc. we find incidental mention of the compass, the plumb-line ( Amos 7:7), and the measuring-line.