How Many Hirams?

By Sir Knight Robert P. Kaltenbach from Knight Templar magazine October 2017

Edited by Sir Knight Chris G. Dalrymple

Many would say that the search for this answer should begin in the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.  It has many degrees and extensive libraries for research, so there we will begin.

The Long Beach Scottish Rite Valley is one of the few that confers all 29 degrees, namely four through 32.  Why do they start at four?

The Grand College of Rites, an organization in Washington, D.C. that keeps track of all the rites in existence and who is currently conferring them in the United States. Louisiana is the only state that confers the Scottish Rite degrees one, two, and three. All other jurisdictions, including Louisiana, have York Rite Grand Lodges.  Therefore the vast majority of subordinate lodges throughout the United States are actually conferring the first three degrees of the York Rite system of Freemasonry.

In the book A Bridge to Light which is used as a textbook for classroom lectures about degrees not actually presented (most Scottish Rite Valleys only confer degrees four, 14, 16, 18, 30, 31 and 32).  This book states on page 33 in a discussion of the sixth degree “in the Scottish Rite workings of the symbolic degrees (1-3), the Pythagorean tetractys is an important symbol.  Since it is not to be found in the York Rite symbols of these degrees, it is not well known among Masons in America, virtually all of whom take the first three degrees in York Rite lodges.”

So let us turn to the York Rite for the continuation or conclusion of the Hiramic legend.  One of the first things noted in the book The York Rite of Freemasonry by Frederick G. Speidel is the traditional story that in 1717 four lodges in England formed the Grand Lodge of England and documented Freemasonry proceeds forward from that point.  However, before 1717 we note that the Regis Poem of 1390 mentions many Masonic things and the York legend of King Athelstan Which Mackey’s Encyclopedia dates from 926, were at least somewhat documented or in the collective memory for hundreds of years.  We must conclude that Freemasonry, in some form, was around long before the four lodges formed a grand lodge in 1717.  In fact it appears that it was around for at least eight centuries before 1717.

After the formation of the grand Lodge in 1717 a search was conducted throughout England for all existing Masonic documents.  These were analyzed by Dr. James Anderson, a Presbyterian minister, who sifted through the collected data and constructed a constitution for the government of the newly formed grand lodge.  This Anderson’s Constitution of 1723 included a history of Masonry that preceded recorded history and was actually a condensation of numerous legends and allegories that had previously existed within the craft. After several years additional research led Dr. Anderson to revise his constitution in light of new discoveries an Anderson’s Constitution of 1738 was adopted by the grand lodge.  

The early constitutions of Freemasonry were decidedly Christian in nature.  The operative masons were predominantly Roman Catholic in England until the protestant reformation of the 16th century.  Yet both of Anderson’s Constitution editions omitted all pre-existing references to Christianity.  Modern Freemasonry now welcomes all monotheistic religions.

After the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England in 1717 that body instituted a number of practices that “modernized” the craft in the opinion of many Masons. This group became known as “the Moderns.”  Shortly thereafter the Grand Lodge of Ireland was formed in 1730, followed by the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1736.

In 1751, six independent London Lodges from the Antient Grand Lodge of England.  This group became known as “the Antients” and styled themselves The Grand Lodge of the Most Ancient and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons (according to the Old Constitutions granted by His Royal Highness Prince Edwin, at York, Anno Domini nine hundred and twenty six, and in the year of Masonry four thousand nine hundred and twenty six).  

The four grand lodges (the Moderns of England, the Irish, the Scottish, and the Antients of England) chartered many lodges in the United States, which explains many of the differences between jurisdictions.  In 1813 the two grand lodges that existed in England, after an extended period of discussion, merged into the United Grand Lodge of England.

The main discrepancy that slowed deliberations was the place the degree of the Holy Royal Arch should, or should not, occupy in the official structure of Freemasonry.  “The Moderns” generally advocated its omission, while “the Antients” maintained that it should be incorporated into the system.  The compromise reached was to insert into the act of union the following:

“It is declared and pronounced, that pure Antient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more; (namely) those of the Entered Apprentice, the Fellowcraft, and the Master Mason, including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch.”

Thus in 1813 there were three degrees in Mason–The Entered Apprentice, the Fellowcraft and the Master Mason degree which included the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch.  

Those who have not been greeted a companion of the Holy Royal Arch Chapter are not aware that the Master Mason Degree has not been completed.  Pieces of the story have been left out of the Master Mason Degree (Part I) that are included in the Holy Royal Arch degrees (Master Mason Degree Part II).

In part I the Masters word was lost and a substitute was given for it.  In part II we learn that the Masters word was never lost.  There were many things surrounding its being hidden, but in the Royal Arch Degree we find that which was lost by finding the key; thus bringing the story begun in the Entered Apprentice Degree to a conclusion in the Master Mason Degree (part II).

All of this information is enlightening, but does not address the question posed by this article–can the Hiramic Legend be found in the Bible?  It does, however, provide a clue. Are you ready?

In 1766, the first Royal Arch Chapter was formed.  Thus began the separation of the Master Mason Degree into two parts, separate from each other.  Part I covered by the Sublime Degree of a Master Mason in the symbolic craft lodge and part II covered by the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch. Here I would call your attention that a degree that is “sublime” is one “of such excellence, grandeur, or beauty as to inspire great admiration or awe,” the definition of that word.  A degree that is “supreme” is one that is “superior (or higher in ranking) to all others” just as the United Grand Lodge of England declared in 1813.  All this to point out that while the part I of the Master Mason Degree is one of such excellence, grandeur, or beauty as to inspire great admiration or awe, it is part II that ranks higher, that is comes later, than the degrees that precede it, thus completing the story.

In the Master Mason Degree we learn that the Grand Master hiram Abif was no longer alive at the time the Temple was completed, but secular history reports that he was alive and well at the dedication of the Temple.  Surely such a contradiction cannot stand!  If we separate the two degrees it is possible to learn that we have two stories about two different people!

In the Bible there are two accountings of the building of King Solomon’s Temple: one in 1 Kings and the other in 2 Chronicles.  Were there two Temples?    Bible students are aware that in the history of the people of Israel the Kingdom of Israel seceded from the monarchy established through David while the Kingdom of Judah (and Benjamin) remained loyal to that monarchy.  The result is that there is a split in recording the chronological actions of the two kingdoms.  The book Kings record the chronological events of the Kings of Judah while Chronicles records the chronological evens of the Kings of Israel.  Saul, David and Solomon are common to both kingdoms, but offer two perspectives on the same story.

First, let us look at the account from 2 Chronicles. Chapter 2, verse 3, 7 and 13-14, and Chapter 3 verse 1 relates:

And Solomon sent to Huram the king of Tyre, saying, As thou didst deal with David my father, and didst send him cedars to build him an house to dwell therein, even so deal with me. …Send me now therefore a man cunning to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in iron, and in purple, and crimson, and blue, and that can skill to grave with the cunning men that are with me in Judah and in Jerusalem, whom David my father did provide…. And now I have sent a cunning man, endued with understanding, of 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 in silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, and in fine linen, and in 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.…Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

According to this story Solomon talked to Huram. In Hebrew there were no vowels so the words Huram and Hiram are spelled the same:  HRM.  The King James translates tried to put vowels in to get the proper English pronunciation.  they decided on the side of consistency so throughout Chronicles they used Huram and throughout Kings they used Hiram.  The certainty, however, is that Solomon entered into an agreement with Hiram of Tyre to build the house and to have a man sent to him who could do everything.  That man was the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and then the Temple was built.

Now look a the story from 1 Kings, specifically chapter 6, verses 1, 38:

And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord. … And in the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.

So the Temple is completed, yet in the next chapter, chapter 7, verses 1, 13, and 14:

But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house….And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. …He was a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali, 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 works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.

In Chronicles Hiram is “Huram my father’s, the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre” or Hiram Abif the son of a woman of Dan whose father was Tyrian.  In Kings Hiram is “Hiram out of Tyre … He was a widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre.”  It seems we are talking of two Hirams, let’s refer to Hiram Abif as Hiram 1 and Hiram of Tyre as Hiram 2.  

Hiram 1 was a man who was the son of a woman of the tribe of Dan and who’s father was a man of Tyre. His mother was not described as a widow.  He was a “general contractor” to use our modern vernacular he could oversee everything at the job site of the Temple and did so for seven years until the completion of the Temple.  

Hiram 2 was fetched by Solomon out of Tyre.  He was a widow’s son whose mother was of the tribe of Naphtali. Abif in Hebrew means “master” or “father.” It is possible that Hiram 1 was the master of Hiram 2 and it is possible that he was his father.  As is the case of many craftsmen, their father was their master, and if something were wrong and the father had died, it would have been logical to have his son complete his work.  While the Temple construction was completed, the finishing of the Temple was not.  Solomon, fearing that the same fate of Hiram 1 would upon Hiram 2, fetched him to be sure that he arrived safely.  When he did, 1 Kings chapter 7 summarizes his work:

And he set up the pillars in the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin: and he set up the left pillar, and called the name thereof Boaz. And upon the top of the pillars was lily work … And he made a molten sea …  It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. … And he made ten bases of brass … And every base had four brazen wheels, and plates of brass … Then made he ten lavers of brass … And the pots, and the shovels, and the basins: and all these vessels, which Hiram made to king Solomon for the house of the Lord, were of bright brass. In the plain of Jordan did the king cast them, in the clay ground between Succoth and Zarthan.

So there were two Hirams.  Hiram 1 the “general contractor” who died before the dedication of the Temple and Hiram 2 “the brass worker” who likely was Hiram’s son who “finished out” the project and was present at the dedication of the Temple.  

Hiram Abif, the father and master of Hiram the widow’s son who completed the Temple, is honored throughout all of Masonry and all of its degrees, because he was the architect of the work.  While we honor his memory, at the dedication of the Temple he was dead.  His son, being a widow’s son finished the work of his father and saw the project to completion.  

Might the Hiram legend have biblical merit?  Since Hiram 1 (Hiram Abif) was the “general contractor” of the Temple; since after the completion of construction but before the finishing of the Temple he was found to be dead; since this caused Solomon to directly “fetch” Hiram, the widow’s son, to finish the project, presumably because of some threat, it seems plausible that there may be biblical merit to the Masonic legend begun in the sublime degree of a Master Masons, but continued in the supreme degree of the Holy Royal Arch and illustrated through the Illustrious Council degrees.