One book that has recently attracted the interest of Freemasons and non-Masons alike who are curious about the Fraternity is a book titled "Hiram Key". The brief biographical sketches of the two co-authors say they are Freemasons, the first was allegedly raised in 1976 and the second ten years later, but they did not say where. They even named in the acknowledgement of their book a certain Reverend pastor (?), allegedly a past master of the Craft who, they claim, had been very supportive of their efforts in making their opus translated to reality.
On the whole, the book can be considered worthwhile reading, this despite the several questionable assertions, which, if not commented upon, can waylay the gullible and the unsuspecting who only read, but does not bother to "digest and discriminate." For the record, let this writer cite a few inconsistencies that the book has expounded- among them:
1. That the pillars Boaz and Jachin are explained in the first degree. In the Philippine Monitor those pillars were not mentioned in the first but in the second degree lecture.
2. On page 10 of the book, the authors explained that the left leg and the right breast were laid bare in the second-degree ritual. In the Philippine ritual the right breast being laid bare is correct but baring the left leg is wrong. The procedure is left leg to left breast in the first degree , or conversely right to right in the second degree. Unless of course, it is done differently in their jurisdiction.
3. On page 11, it says that "careful study of the Bible has found no mention of a middle chamber in King Solomon's Temple."
The copy of the Holy Bible that bears the imprimatur of the Catholic Church use the phrase "middle story" while the Berkeley Version that was placed by the Gideons used the phrase "middle side chambers." The Authorized King James Version, on the other hand, used by the Craft use the precise words "middle chamber". (These three versions will also be used as the biblical references on subsequent referrals of quotations.)
Which just about rebuts the authors' allegation that the middle chamber cannot be found in King Solomon's Temple.
4. The implements that the authors said were used by the ruffians were not as mentioned in the Philippine ritual. The book Hiram Key says that Jubela used a plumb rule, Jubelo a level, while Jubelum used a setting maul. Jubelum's use of the setting maul is correct, but then again, the other two implements were wrong.
5. On page 80 it mentioned Simeon and Levi killing someone but stated that the slain man was not identified. Because of this, the authors theorized that the slain man was Seqenenre Tao, the Egyptian monarch who ruled Egypt during the time of Joseph. Had the authors bothered to read the Holy Bible thoroughly, however, they would have found out that the slain man was duly identified; he was Schechem son of Hamor, the Hivite, who raped Dinah, the only daughter of Jacob.
6. The substitute for the ancient master's word that the authors revealed is a sentence which says:
Ma'at-neb-men-aa, Maat-ba-aa.
Which they translated to mean...
"Great is the established Master of Freemasonry, Great is the Spirit of Freemasonry".
Again, either the Craft in their jurisdiction applied different meanings to this delicate portion of the Craft's ritual or the authors joined a clandestine branch of the Fraternity!
The inconsistencies mentioned above may well be labeled as differences in rituals of various jurisdictions especially when it cannot be cross-referenced with the provisions of the Holy Bible, and not having copies of the rituals of the other jurisdictions, and therefore, cannot cross-check these with the monitors which they may have used, then these statements should be allowed to pass as questionable truths.
But the most controversial statement that deserves critical comment is the allegation that Hiram Abif is not mentioned in the Holy Bible!
And how would you, as a Freemason who had imitated the death of the Grand Master Hiram Abif, feel if you knew that the Grand Master did not exist? That he should be labeled in the Holy Bible as merely a man skilled in bronze work, etc., is perfectly understandable because the honor of being the builder during the ancient times is reserved solely for the kings although they did not actually planned and oversee their constructions, but to say that he did not exist at all is preposterous!
And so, this search for the Master Builder!
The first clue this writer found out, can be found in our third degree monitor where King Solomon said to Hiram of Tyre the following:
"My worthy brother of Tyre, your suggestion is both good and timely. When human strength and wisdom fails, there is yet strength in the lion of the tribe of Judah. Though the skin slips from the flesh and the flesh cleaves from the bones, there is yet strength in the lion of the tribe of Judah. With your assistance, I will raise the body by the strong grip of the lion's paw and the five points of fellowship, etc. etc.."
It turned out the lead was false. A dead man whose skin slips from the flesh and whose flesh cleaves from the bones can no longer possess the strength of a even a cub, much more a lion. The lion cannot therefore refer to Hiram Abif; nor can it refer to Hiram of Tyre because the latter is of Phoenician origin. Ergo, the title must refer to King Solomon. But how does one check this out?
The key is the phrase "lion of the tribe of Judah" (for a more detailed analysis on the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the reader is encouraged to open the Masonic Education page for a related article); but how does one analyze this?
The word Judah has two meanings. It can connote a place, or the name of a person. Judah, as a place, refers to the southern kingdom of the Jewish nation, the northern being Israel. The word was in turn derived from the name of the person who originally used it. Who then is Judah?
Judah is the son of Jacob who is in turn the son of Isaac, who, by like manner, is the son of Abraham. Which effectively makes Judah the great grandson of Abraham. But wait; the mention of four names in just one sentence can get complicated. Let's take them up one by one, the last-named explained first.
Abraham and Isaac can be found in the third degree lecture which says:
"It (meaning the temple of King Solomon) was located near Mount Moriah, near the place where Abraham was about to offer up his son, Isaac, and on the place where David met and appeased the destroying angel."
There you are! Abraham and Isaac were the first visitors of the place where the Temple is to be built. Jacob, on the other hand, is found in the first-degree monitor where the covering of a lodge is explained thus:
"The covering of a lodge is no less the clouded canopy or star-decked heaven where all good men hope at last to arrive, where Jacob in his vision saw, reaching from earth to heaven, the three principal rounds of which are denominated by Faith, Hope, etcetera."
So let's now get back to Judah.
Judah is the fourth of the thirteen children of Jacob, twelve boys and one girl, by four women, two of whom are sisters. This effectively explains why King Solomon is also fond of women, even his great, great, great (how many great, this writer could no longer figure out) grandfather was also fond of women, but let us not digress on the main topic.
The Book of Genesis says that Jacob sired the following from the following women.
A. From Leah
1. Reuben
2. Simeon
3. Levi
4. Judah
5. Isaachar
6. Zebulum
B. From Bilhah
7. Dan
8. Napthali
C. From Zilpah
9. Gad
10. Asher
D. From Rachel
11. Joseph
12. Benjamin
In addition, Leah also produced a girl named Dinah who was later raped by Schechem, a Hitite, but that's getting ahead of the story. Now, producing thirteen (13) children may not be considered an accomplishment in itself, but the number thirteen is intriguing.
The Holy Bible says that as a bachelor Jacob left Isaac and went to the tribe of his uncle, Laban. There he was enamored with Rachel, the younger daughter of Laban and forthwith served his uncle for seven years to enable him marry her. But at bedtime, Laban switched Leah for Rachel and as Jacob was already drunk, went into her. The next morning, Jacob was of course angry but could not do anything as marrying the elder is the custom of the place. Ruefully, he served Laban for another seven years just so he could marry Rachel.
But Rachel could not bear children while Leah was propagating her fair share. In succession, she bore Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah, rested for a while, and later again bore Isaachar and Zebulum.
Incensed at the anomalous situation, Rachel willingly allowed her maid, Bilhah to be impregnated by Jacob so that she could treat the offspring that would ensue as if it were her child. As a faithful servant and also because of sexual needs, Bilhah was cooperative and bore Dan and Napthali.
Leah would not be denied. She also allowed her maid Zilpah to be impregnated by Jacob who likewise bore two sons, Gad and Asher. And to further complicate the already complicated merry-go-round, Rachel also later bore two children, Joseph and Benjamin. Which just about tells us not to lose hope, because if Rachel did lose hope in bearing a child, then Joseph would not have been born, and if his birth did not materialize, who would become the Vizer of all Egypt who would later rescue the clan from famine in the ancient land of Ur?
And why is the narration of the children of Judah necessary in the search of the Grand Master Hiram Abif?
Well, because the tribes of Dan and Napthali were specifically mentioned in the building of King Solomon's Temple. Specifically, the workman who is skilled in brass came from one of these two tribes, depending on what book you are referring to. And to insure that there is no confusion, three versions of the Holy Bible (namely, the Catholic edition, the
King James Version and the Berkeley edition) are mentioned hereunder: Let's now refer to the Holy Book.
1 Kings, 7, 13-14
Berkeley Edition - Then King Solomon had Hiram brought out from Tyre. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Napthali, his father had been a Tyrian bronze worker. His father was intelligent, talented, and talented in skilled in all types of bronze work.
King James Version - And King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. He was a widow's son of the tribe of Napthali and his father was a man from Tyre, a worker in bronze 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.
Catholic Edition - King Solomon had Hiram brought from Tyre. He was a bronze worker, the son of a widow from the tribe of Napthali; his father had been from Tyre. He was endowed with skill, understanding and knowledge of how to produce any work in bronze.
2 Chronicles 2, 13
Berkeley Edition - So now I will send a master craftsman, my famed Huram, skilled in understanding- the son of a woman from the people of Dan, whose father was a man from Tyre- expert at working in gold, silver, copper, iron and stone; . . .
King James Version - And now I have sent a cunning man, endued with understanding, of Huram my father's, the son of a woman from the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre, skillful to work in gold, in silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, . . . .
Catholic Edition - I am now sending you a craftsman of great skill, Huram-Abi, son of a Danite woman and of a father from Tyre; he knows how to work with gold, silver, bronze and iron. . .
From the two books above-mentioned, the architect who is skilled in the work of brass either has the name Hiram . . . from the tribe of Napthali, or Huram . . . from the tribe of Dan. But the Catholic Edition has added a suffix on the name Huram, and that is Abi!!
And what does this amount to? Simply this!
In one of the Scottish Rite degrees (this writer will not say which so that the reader may be encouraged to get back at the Scottish Rite teachings if he has already received them, or join the Scottish Rite if he hasn't done so yet), part of the topic of which states:
"The name of the Master who is known to you as Hiram Abif is connected with the same symbol. Abif is not a part of his name, not a correct rendering of the Hebrew word which is "Abiu", his father. Ab and Abi means father, master, instructor. Nor is the word Hiram. For in the Book of Kings, Khairom or Khairum, and in the Book of Chronicles, Khurum; and Khurum in the Phoenician language means "the sun.".
How again was the word Hiram changed to Khairom and Huram to Khurum is beyond this writer's imagination. Phonetics and ancient pronunciations, after all, are now beyond the scope of this short article.
End of the search. The GMHA, did exist after all!!
On the whole, the book can be considered worthwhile reading, this despite the several questionable assertions, which, if not commented upon, can waylay the gullible and the unsuspecting who only read, but does not bother to "digest and discriminate." For the record, let this writer cite a few inconsistencies that the book has expounded- among them:
1. That the pillars Boaz and Jachin are explained in the first degree. In the Philippine Monitor those pillars were not mentioned in the first but in the second degree lecture.
2. On page 10 of the book, the authors explained that the left leg and the right breast were laid bare in the second-degree ritual. In the Philippine ritual the right breast being laid bare is correct but baring the left leg is wrong. The procedure is left leg to left breast in the first degree , or conversely right to right in the second degree. Unless of course, it is done differently in their jurisdiction.
3. On page 11, it says that "careful study of the Bible has found no mention of a middle chamber in King Solomon's Temple."
The copy of the Holy Bible that bears the imprimatur of the Catholic Church use the phrase "middle story" while the Berkeley Version that was placed by the Gideons used the phrase "middle side chambers." The Authorized King James Version, on the other hand, used by the Craft use the precise words "middle chamber". (These three versions will also be used as the biblical references on subsequent referrals of quotations.)
Which just about rebuts the authors' allegation that the middle chamber cannot be found in King Solomon's Temple.
4. The implements that the authors said were used by the ruffians were not as mentioned in the Philippine ritual. The book Hiram Key says that Jubela used a plumb rule, Jubelo a level, while Jubelum used a setting maul. Jubelum's use of the setting maul is correct, but then again, the other two implements were wrong.
5. On page 80 it mentioned Simeon and Levi killing someone but stated that the slain man was not identified. Because of this, the authors theorized that the slain man was Seqenenre Tao, the Egyptian monarch who ruled Egypt during the time of Joseph. Had the authors bothered to read the Holy Bible thoroughly, however, they would have found out that the slain man was duly identified; he was Schechem son of Hamor, the Hivite, who raped Dinah, the only daughter of Jacob.
6. The substitute for the ancient master's word that the authors revealed is a sentence which says:
Ma'at-neb-men-aa, Maat-ba-aa.
Which they translated to mean...
"Great is the established Master of Freemasonry, Great is the Spirit of Freemasonry".
Again, either the Craft in their jurisdiction applied different meanings to this delicate portion of the Craft's ritual or the authors joined a clandestine branch of the Fraternity!
The inconsistencies mentioned above may well be labeled as differences in rituals of various jurisdictions especially when it cannot be cross-referenced with the provisions of the Holy Bible, and not having copies of the rituals of the other jurisdictions, and therefore, cannot cross-check these with the monitors which they may have used, then these statements should be allowed to pass as questionable truths.
But the most controversial statement that deserves critical comment is the allegation that Hiram Abif is not mentioned in the Holy Bible!
And how would you, as a Freemason who had imitated the death of the Grand Master Hiram Abif, feel if you knew that the Grand Master did not exist? That he should be labeled in the Holy Bible as merely a man skilled in bronze work, etc., is perfectly understandable because the honor of being the builder during the ancient times is reserved solely for the kings although they did not actually planned and oversee their constructions, but to say that he did not exist at all is preposterous!
And so, this search for the Master Builder!
The first clue this writer found out, can be found in our third degree monitor where King Solomon said to Hiram of Tyre the following:
"My worthy brother of Tyre, your suggestion is both good and timely. When human strength and wisdom fails, there is yet strength in the lion of the tribe of Judah. Though the skin slips from the flesh and the flesh cleaves from the bones, there is yet strength in the lion of the tribe of Judah. With your assistance, I will raise the body by the strong grip of the lion's paw and the five points of fellowship, etc. etc.."
It turned out the lead was false. A dead man whose skin slips from the flesh and whose flesh cleaves from the bones can no longer possess the strength of a even a cub, much more a lion. The lion cannot therefore refer to Hiram Abif; nor can it refer to Hiram of Tyre because the latter is of Phoenician origin. Ergo, the title must refer to King Solomon. But how does one check this out?
The key is the phrase "lion of the tribe of Judah" (for a more detailed analysis on the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the reader is encouraged to open the Masonic Education page for a related article); but how does one analyze this?
The word Judah has two meanings. It can connote a place, or the name of a person. Judah, as a place, refers to the southern kingdom of the Jewish nation, the northern being Israel. The word was in turn derived from the name of the person who originally used it. Who then is Judah?
Judah is the son of Jacob who is in turn the son of Isaac, who, by like manner, is the son of Abraham. Which effectively makes Judah the great grandson of Abraham. But wait; the mention of four names in just one sentence can get complicated. Let's take them up one by one, the last-named explained first.
Abraham and Isaac can be found in the third degree lecture which says:
"It (meaning the temple of King Solomon) was located near Mount Moriah, near the place where Abraham was about to offer up his son, Isaac, and on the place where David met and appeased the destroying angel."
There you are! Abraham and Isaac were the first visitors of the place where the Temple is to be built. Jacob, on the other hand, is found in the first-degree monitor where the covering of a lodge is explained thus:
"The covering of a lodge is no less the clouded canopy or star-decked heaven where all good men hope at last to arrive, where Jacob in his vision saw, reaching from earth to heaven, the three principal rounds of which are denominated by Faith, Hope, etcetera."
So let's now get back to Judah.
Judah is the fourth of the thirteen children of Jacob, twelve boys and one girl, by four women, two of whom are sisters. This effectively explains why King Solomon is also fond of women, even his great, great, great (how many great, this writer could no longer figure out) grandfather was also fond of women, but let us not digress on the main topic.
The Book of Genesis says that Jacob sired the following from the following women.
A. From Leah
1. Reuben
2. Simeon
3. Levi
4. Judah
5. Isaachar
6. Zebulum
B. From Bilhah
7. Dan
8. Napthali
C. From Zilpah
9. Gad
10. Asher
D. From Rachel
11. Joseph
12. Benjamin
In addition, Leah also produced a girl named Dinah who was later raped by Schechem, a Hitite, but that's getting ahead of the story. Now, producing thirteen (13) children may not be considered an accomplishment in itself, but the number thirteen is intriguing.
The Holy Bible says that as a bachelor Jacob left Isaac and went to the tribe of his uncle, Laban. There he was enamored with Rachel, the younger daughter of Laban and forthwith served his uncle for seven years to enable him marry her. But at bedtime, Laban switched Leah for Rachel and as Jacob was already drunk, went into her. The next morning, Jacob was of course angry but could not do anything as marrying the elder is the custom of the place. Ruefully, he served Laban for another seven years just so he could marry Rachel.
But Rachel could not bear children while Leah was propagating her fair share. In succession, she bore Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah, rested for a while, and later again bore Isaachar and Zebulum.
Incensed at the anomalous situation, Rachel willingly allowed her maid, Bilhah to be impregnated by Jacob so that she could treat the offspring that would ensue as if it were her child. As a faithful servant and also because of sexual needs, Bilhah was cooperative and bore Dan and Napthali.
Leah would not be denied. She also allowed her maid Zilpah to be impregnated by Jacob who likewise bore two sons, Gad and Asher. And to further complicate the already complicated merry-go-round, Rachel also later bore two children, Joseph and Benjamin. Which just about tells us not to lose hope, because if Rachel did lose hope in bearing a child, then Joseph would not have been born, and if his birth did not materialize, who would become the Vizer of all Egypt who would later rescue the clan from famine in the ancient land of Ur?
And why is the narration of the children of Judah necessary in the search of the Grand Master Hiram Abif?
Well, because the tribes of Dan and Napthali were specifically mentioned in the building of King Solomon's Temple. Specifically, the workman who is skilled in brass came from one of these two tribes, depending on what book you are referring to. And to insure that there is no confusion, three versions of the Holy Bible (namely, the Catholic edition, the
King James Version and the Berkeley edition) are mentioned hereunder: Let's now refer to the Holy Book.
1 Kings, 7, 13-14
Berkeley Edition - Then King Solomon had Hiram brought out from Tyre. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Napthali, his father had been a Tyrian bronze worker. His father was intelligent, talented, and talented in skilled in all types of bronze work.
King James Version - And King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. He was a widow's son of the tribe of Napthali and his father was a man from Tyre, a worker in bronze 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.
Catholic Edition - King Solomon had Hiram brought from Tyre. He was a bronze worker, the son of a widow from the tribe of Napthali; his father had been from Tyre. He was endowed with skill, understanding and knowledge of how to produce any work in bronze.
2 Chronicles 2, 13
Berkeley Edition - So now I will send a master craftsman, my famed Huram, skilled in understanding- the son of a woman from the people of Dan, whose father was a man from Tyre- expert at working in gold, silver, copper, iron and stone; . . .
King James Version - And now I have sent a cunning man, endued with understanding, of Huram my father's, the son of a woman from the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre, skillful to work in gold, in silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, . . . .
Catholic Edition - I am now sending you a craftsman of great skill, Huram-Abi, son of a Danite woman and of a father from Tyre; he knows how to work with gold, silver, bronze and iron. . .
From the two books above-mentioned, the architect who is skilled in the work of brass either has the name Hiram . . . from the tribe of Napthali, or Huram . . . from the tribe of Dan. But the Catholic Edition has added a suffix on the name Huram, and that is Abi!!
And what does this amount to? Simply this!
In one of the Scottish Rite degrees (this writer will not say which so that the reader may be encouraged to get back at the Scottish Rite teachings if he has already received them, or join the Scottish Rite if he hasn't done so yet), part of the topic of which states:
"The name of the Master who is known to you as Hiram Abif is connected with the same symbol. Abif is not a part of his name, not a correct rendering of the Hebrew word which is "Abiu", his father. Ab and Abi means father, master, instructor. Nor is the word Hiram. For in the Book of Kings, Khairom or Khairum, and in the Book of Chronicles, Khurum; and Khurum in the Phoenician language means "the sun.".
How again was the word Hiram changed to Khairom and Huram to Khurum is beyond this writer's imagination. Phonetics and ancient pronunciations, after all, are now beyond the scope of this short article.
End of the search. The GMHA, did exist after all!!
Comments