textfiles/magazines/STB/stb-1934-02.txt

SHORT TALK BULLETIN - Vol.XII   February, 1934   No.2

HIRAM ABIF

by: Unknown

The word “Abif” (sometimes written “Abiff.” but far less often than 
with the single “F”) has in one way or another caused considerable 
controversy among both Biblical and Masonic scholars.
Those who are familiar with Hebrew speak learnedly of its derivation 
from Abi or Abiw or abiv - the consonants W and V  being 
approximations, apparently, of a Hebrew sound not easily rendered in 
English letters.  Our familiar King James Bible translates the word 
two ways “Huram my father’s” and “Huram his father” which in itself 
has led to some confusion as to whether our Hiram Abif was the only 
Hiram or the father of another.  Scholars, however, are fairly well 
agreed that “my father” as a translation of “Abif” is correct if the 
words be understood as a title of honor.  Hiram the Widow’s Son was 
“father” in the same sense that priests of the church are so known; 
the same variety of father that was Abraham to the tribes of Israel.  
Abif, then, is a title of respect and veneration, rather than a 
genealogical term.
Just when the legend of Hiram Abif came into our symbolism is a study 
by itself of which only a few bare facts can here be included.  
Common understanding believes that Hiram Abif has always been in our 
system, and descended to us from the days of Solomon.  But critical 
scholarship will have none of “common understanding” and demands 
proof; names, dates, places, documents before setting a date to any 
happening.
Our oldest Masonic manuscript (Regius Poem, dated approximately 1390) 
traces Masonry not to Solomon but to Nimrod and Euclid, in a still 
earlier time.  In this is no mention of Hiram Abif.  The Dowland 
manuscript, dated about 1550, mentions him but only as one of many.  
Not until The King James version of the Bible appeared (1611) do we 
find Hiram Abif know as such with any degree of familiarity.  Yet 
here a curious fact it to be found; sometime after the new Bible made 
its appearance - late in the sixteen hundreds, when the King James 
version had become well known - interest in King Solomon’s Temple was 
so keen that many models were made and exhibited and handbooks about 
it printed and distributed.  Such specific interest in this 
particular building from the then new book may easily have come from 
the familiarity of Operative and some Speculative Masons with the 
Temple symbolism and, by inference, with Hiram Abif.
Anderson’s explanatory footnote of Hiram Abif in his Constitutions 
(1732) is as follows (spelling and capitalization modernized and 
Hebrew letters omitted):	
“We read (2 Chron. ii, 13) Hiram, King of Tyre (called there Huram), 
in his letter to King Solomon, says, I have met a cunning man, le 
huram Abi not to be translated according to the vulgar Greek and 
Latin, Huram my Father, as if this architect was King Hiram’s father; 
for his description, ver. 14, refutes it, and the original plainly 
imports, Huram of my Father’s, viz, the Chief Master Mason of my 
Father, King Abibalus; (who enlarged and beautified the city of Tyre, 
as ancient histories inform us, whereby the Tyrians at this time were 
most expert in Masonry) tho some think Hiram the King might call 
Hiram the architect father, as learned and skillful men were wont to 
be called of old times, or as Joseph was called the father of 
Pharaoh; and as the same Hiram is called Solomon’s father, (2 Chron. 
iv, 16) where ‘tis said:
Shelomoh lammelech Abhif Churam ghmasah.Did Huram, his father, make 
to King Solomon.But the difficulty is over at once, by allowing the 
Abif to be the surname of Hiram the Mason, called also (Chap. ii, 13) 
Hiram Abi, as here Hiram Abif; for being so amply described 
(Chap.ii,14) we may easily suppose his surname would not be 
concealed:  And this reading makes the sense plain and complete, 
viz., that Hiram, King of Tyre, sent to King Solomon his namesake 
Hiram Abif, the prince of architects, decried (1 Kings vii, 14) to be 
a widow’s son of the Tribe of Naphthali; and in (2 Chron. ii, 14) the 
said King of Tyre calls him the son of a woman of the daughters of 
Dan; and in both places, that his father was a man of Tyre, which 
difficulty is removed, by supposing his mother was either of the 
Tribe of Dan, or of the daughters of the city called Dan in the Tribe 
of Naphthali, and his deceased father had been a Naphthalite, whence 
his mother was called a widow of Naphthali; for his father is not 
called a Tyrian by descent, but his a man of Tyre by habitation; as 
Obed Edom the Levite is called Gittite, by living among the Gitties, 
and the Apostle Paul a man of Tarsus.  But supposing a mistake in 
transcribers, and that his father was really a Tyrian by blood and 
his mother only of the Tribe either of Dan or of Naphthali, that can 
be no bar against allowing of his vast capacity, for as his father 
was a worker in brass, so he himself was filled with wisdom and 
understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass; and as King 
Solomon sent for him, so King Hiram, in his letter to Solomon, says: 
And now I have sent a cunning man, endued with understanding, 
skillful to work in Gold, silver, brass, iron, stone, timber, purple, 
blue, fine linen and crimson; also to grave any manner of graving, 
and to find out every device which shall be put to him with thy 
cunning men, and with the cunning men of My Lord David thy father.  
This divinely inspired workman maintained this character in erecting 
the Temple, and in working the utensils thereof, far beyond the 
performances of Aholiab and Bezaleel, being so universally capable of 
all sorts of Masonry.”
In First Kings we read: “And King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out 
of Tyure.  He was a widow’s son of the tribe of Naphthali and his 
father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass; and he was filled with 
wisdom and understanding and cunning to work all kinds of brass.  And 
he came to King Solomon and wrought all his work.”
In Second Chronicles Hiram, King of Tyre, is made to say:  
“And now I have sent a cunning man, endued with understanding, Huram 
my father’s, the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his 
father was a man of Tyre, skillful to work in gold and silver, in 
brass. iron, in stone and in timber, in purple and blue and fine 
linen, and in crimson, and to find out every device which shall be 
put to him, with thy cunning men, and with the cunning men of David, 
thy father.”
Alas for those who would believe in the literal truth of the Legend 
if they could find but a single word to hang to; the end of the story 
of Hiram Abif is short and calm, not great or tragic.  The Chronicler 
says”  “And Huram finished the work that he was to make for King 
Solomon for the house of God” and the writer of Kings is no less 
brief: 
“So Hiram made an end of doing all the work that he made King Solomon 
for the house of the Lord.”
This is not the place to speculate upon the formation of “The 
Master’s Part” into our Third Degree - critical scholarship does not 
believe our ceremony was cast into anything like its present form 
prior to 1725 at the earliest.  But Anderson would not have devoted 
so much attention to Hiram Abif without some good reason; it seems 
obvious that “in some form,” the story of Hiram Abif was of 
importance in 1723, and by inference, in the Lodges which formed the 
Grand Lodge which led to the writing of the Constitutions.
Facts are stubborn and frequently run counter to our desires.  We 
would like to believe in the verity of the legends which cluster 
around Hiram Abif, but we actually know very little about him.
In addition to six Biblical references, Josephus quotes Menander and 
Duis in reference to him two or three times, and refers independently 
as many more . . . and that is all; not very much on which to build 
our belief in his character, his greatness, his towering moral and 
spiritual entity.
On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to envisage any historic 
character at least in large outline by careful analogy with other 
contemporary characters, by reference to his time, his civilization, 
his opportunity, his work.  Suppose that all we knew of George 
Washington was that he was General In Chief of the Revolutionary 
Army, lived at Mount Vernon, and was the first President of the 
United States.  Much might be read of him merely from these three 
facts.  Thirteen colonies, engaged in a struggle to the death for 
freedom, would not choose for a leader a man without experience in 
military affairs.  The fact that the Revolution succeeded would tell 
us that his leadership must have been superb.  That he was made First 
President of the new Republic would indicate with certainty that he 
had the confidence of the people as a soldier, a man, a leader, and 
consequently possessed a character to be admired and revered, 
otherwise he would not be so chose.  Merely to look a Mount Vernon is 
to see a lover of beauty, a man of taste and education, one who loved 
the earth and its products; the great house speaks with emphasis of 
hospitality.  Much more might be read of Washington from only these 
three facts, but enough has been said to show the process by which we 
may envisage something of Hiram Abif, even with only meager data.
Sacred history teaches much of the time of Solomon; of his queen, the 
daughter of Egypt; of Hiram, King of Tyre; of Adoniram, the tax 
collector; of officers Solomon set over various districts.  We have a 
regal picture of Solomon’s court, and lengthy and minute description 
of the Temple.
The chief builder, architect, master workman, give him what title you 
will, could hardly have mixed in such company, directed the greatest 
work in Israel’s history, been received by Solomon from Hiram King of 
Tyre as the best he had to offer, and not been a man of parts, 
ability, skill, learning, culture.  To think of him only as one 
“cunning to work all kinds of brass,” in other words, only as an 
artisan, is completely to misunderstand the too few words in 
Chronicles and Kings.  Rather let us put our belief in the statement 
that Hiram Abif was “filled with wisdom and understanding” and recall 
Solomon’s many words of admiration for wisdom; he must have been a 
wise man indeed into whose charge Solomon the Wise was content to 
give his most ambitious undertaking.
It is commonplace that genius is eccentric; those touched with the 
divine fire are often “different” from men of more common clay.   So 
it is not surprising that one legend tells of intense loyalty, of 
firmness and fortitude under duress, reading into these 
characteristics an exalted and elevated character, quite in keeping 
with the architect and builder of the Temple.
The distinction between architect and builder is often hazy - it 
should be acute.  Our ritual speaks of Hiram Abif as one “who by his 
great skill in the arts and sciences was so effectually enabled to 
beautify and adorn the Temple,” which seems to make him a mere 
adorner!  Anything wholly fitted to its use becomes beautiful because 
of unity and completeness, yet it is also true that what is also 
useful as a building is not necessarily beautiful to the eye.  Any 
square box of a house gives as secure a shelter as one beautiful in 
proportion.  But complete beauty of building comes when the utility 
is combined with an appeal to sense and soul.
The Temp[le built by Hiram Abif was no mere shelter; it was the 
expression of Israel’s love of God.  To consider Hiram Abif as a mere 
decorator, beautifier, ornamenter is to deny the very thing for which 
he lived and - in the legend - gave his life.  Architect he was, in 
all that the best sense of the word implies; builder he was, in that 
he carried out his own plans.
Of his physical being we have no details.  The probability is that he 
stood about five feet six inches in height, was bearded, swarthy in 
countenance, had dark eyes, his hair likely long and curly, his 
shoulders broad - these were the characteristics of his people.
Doubtless he was married and a father when he built the Temple.  The 
men of the Twelve Tribes married early; an unmarried man was almost 
unknown, so be it he was not a cripple, maimed or diseased.  Hiram 
Abif would have a reasonable amount of wealth; the chief workman 
which Hiram, King of Tyre, sent to King Solomon who “wrought all his 
work” would be no tyro, amateur or beginner; but a man famed for his 
art and science and craftsmanship, and thus, one who had already won 
fame and fortune before he was given this, the greatest task ever 
laid on the shoulders of a man of the time of Solomon.
Undoubtedly he was regarded with awe and veneration by those workmen 
over whom he came to rule while building the Temple, and all their 
families and connections, because of his ability as a great artist.  
Tribes which but a short time back had been tent-dwelling nomads, 
whose art was small and whose handiwork was of the crudest, must have 
looked at one as skilled as Hiram Abif as at a magician, a miracle 
man, one equal to the very High Priest himself.  No wonder they 
called him Abif, “my father!”
Hiram Abif must have been, at least in private, treated by Solomon as 
a familiar friend, as much an equal as was possible for an Eastern 
Potentate of absolute power and authority.  Consultations would be 
daily in the building of the Temple.  Hiram Abif would be received as 
an honored guest at Solomon’s table.  If in public the Architect 
treated his lord and master with the profound respect which such as 
Solomon have always exacted from subjects high and low, it is 
probable that such asteroids were relaxed in private, so that there 
is nothing incongruous in our legendary picture of Solomon, King of 
Israel, Hiram, King of Trye, and Hiram Abif, acting together in 
concert as co-rulers - “our first three most excellent Grand Masters” 
- in governing the workmen and erecting the mighty structure which 
engaged their attention for seven years.
It is easy to say this verbal picture is but a flight of fancy.  It 
is less easy to draw a less attractive one in its place and make it 
appear true.  While we know Chronicles and Kings and a few other 
ancient accounts almost nothing of the architect, we do - thanks to 
patient scholarship, much digging in the earth, and a reading of the 
literature of all times - know much of the people of Israel, how they 
worked and ate and lived and loved and labored.  After all, it is 
less important that our mental picture of the illustrious Tyrian be 
absolutely accurate in small detail than that we keep a true image of 
a venerated character in our hearts.  The color of his eyes and hair 
matter little; the hue of his conscience, everything.  We are told of 
his knowledge of art and building, of brass and stone, of carving and 
sculpture - knowing other great artists who have devoted their lives 
to the creation of the beautiful, it is with some assurance that we 
liken Hiram Abif’s character to the average of great workmen who have 
labored to produce beauty before the eyes of Him they worshipped.
Legendary though our story of Hiram is, and must ever be, our 
conception of the Architect can continue to be an inspiring fact, and 
we are the better men and Masons that it is such a man as this we are 
taught to represent.