Talk:Hiram Abiff

"Chair of Hiram Abiff"

Not disputing the accuracy of this... but it is really worth mentioning? It strikes me as a bit of Masonic Trivia that readers would not need to know. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing modern scholarship on the Masonic legend

This article is missing the modern interpretation of the Masonic legend.

"From reading rituals [...] Hiram Abiff turns out to be the Great Architect of the Universe. [This] however, is not obvious at all, at least for most modern Masons. [...] Hiram Abiff is explicitly referred to as the architect of the temple of king Solomon; and the Bible is explicit about who designed that temple, viz. God.1 Chronicles 28:11–1328:19 Therefore it should not surprise us to find that Hiram Abiff, the architect of the temple, turns out to be God."

References

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a new one... I would dismiss it as an extremely fringe opinion. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

No, scholarly and not fringe.

This Snoek interpretation is cited in Eddy, Glenys (2004). "The ritual dimension of Western esotericism: the rebirth motif and the transformation of human consciousness". In Crangle, Edward F. (ed.). Esotericism and the control of knowledge. Sydney Studies in Religion. Vol. 5. Sydney: University of Sydney. pp. 228 229. ISBN 9781864876420 – via Sydney eScholarship Journals online. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC); modified 22:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"Scholarly" and "fringe" are not mutually exclusive. Fringe simply means "beyond the mainstream". And whether we are talking about the biblical Hiram or the Masonic version, the idea that Hiram = God is... Definitely out there, way beyond the mainstream. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like an obvious mapping of simple facts with almost no interpretation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. Snoek bases his conclusions on Vibert's theory that Freemasonry started with only one degree. This dates from the 1920s, and is hopelessly outdated and wrong. Eddy is better, but what can we add? There is a tenuous link between the third degree of Freemasonry and Renaissance Neoplatonism? This is much better explored in Stevenson (Eddy's source), and has more to do with the attraction of Freemasonry in the early modern period than anything specifically to do with Hiram Abif. Enjoyed the read, but wrong article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fiddlersmouth: can you cite an academic source that rebuts Snoek on the subject of who is Hiram Abiff? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No need - it's his opinion (see Blueboar above). Does it have sufficient weight to be added to "other theories"? I note that Eddy does NOT quote Snoek as stating that Hiram Abif is God. However, as Snoek is a respected scholar, and in spite of his basing his findings on Vibert and Pritchard (the Modern's rite), I think his opinion should be added, not least so we can all have a good laugh. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fiddlersmouth: you can laugh at the man who has a page on an academic portal for masonic research and has published many works about masonry. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I can laugh at a man who uses terrible sources to arrive at a very silly conclusion, yes. I just said it needs included. What the hell else do you want? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I still disagree on adding it. The guy may be a scholar, but this particular idea of his is too far out in left field to mention. WP:Undue. Blueboar (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fiddlersmouth: I added the "you can laugh at the man..." comment so other editors who read this discussion can arrive at their own conclusion about whether to laugh at Snoek once they read his credentials. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

As an aside: you quote Snoek as saying "From reading rituals...", which begs the question: which rituals did he read? I can't speak to every ritual ever written, but I can speak to the ritual used in New York... where it is clear that Hiram is NOT God. 1) It is stated that on the day of his death, "he repaired to the unfinished Sanctum Sanctorum of the temple, to offer up his devotions to God." He was not praying to himself. Furthermore, 2) He is described as being "the son of an Ishmaelitish widow of a Tyrian citizen"... ie he is presented as being a mortal man, with mortal parents. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: the work is linked for editors to read. From what I saw in Google Scholar search, he is a mason and has written comparisons of English and French masonic catechisms in masonic journals like Heredom (for his discussion about variations of rituals, see: Snoek, Joannes A. M. (2003). "The evolution of the Hiramic Legend in England and France" (PDF). Heredom. 11. Washington, DC: Scottish Rite Research Society: 11–53. OCLC 63212085.). I think he is describing floating signifiers, but I am not a mason. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC); modified 19:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu:Seriously, thanks. Snoek's Evolution is a very useful document. I could quibble on the over-use (again) of Pritchard. Pritchard's little book was a catechism, not a full ritual, and he was a disillusioned ex-mason who probably wasn't a member for very long. He's important because he is the earliest indicator of the third degree ritual, but must be regarded as unreliable. The French sources, to which we must add the cipher "Vrai Catechisme" ca 1744 are the most useful. The Marquis de Gage is the earliest full ritual I have found, and should be better studied by English speaking researchers. So, what do we do with this stuff? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fiddlersmouth: I don't know, I was looking for content for the other article and just pointed out what read. Abiff is only incidental to my current interest. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Masonic Belief in Immortality of the Soul and Karma

I tweaked... Hiram Abiff (also Hiram Abif or the Widow's son) is the central character of an important story presented to all candidates during the third degree in Freemasonry.

Hiram is presented as the chief architect of King Solomon's Temple. He is murdered inside this Temple by three ruffians, after they failed to obtain from him the Master Masons' secret passwords. The themes of the story are the importance of fidelity and the certainty of karma after death. 2601:589:4801:5660:EC71:24D9:9C8A:2D4C (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted. Karma isn’t mentioned in the majority of masonic jurisdictions, and we want to generalize so as to keep this applicable to all of them. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Albert Mackey

Albert Mackey has an explanation for the origin of Hiram Abiff. Is there any particular reason why it has not been included?--Berig (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hiram Avi

According to Jewish commentator Metzudat David, the expression 'avi' relates to the fact the Hiram was also Hiram's father's artist. 2A01:73C0:601:5BFF:0:0:A2F5:38B6 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)