Talk:Hiram Abiff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do:

Contents

[edit] Redirection and such

Redirected from Sp. "Hiram Abif". Article re-started. Imacomp 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a redirect was needed, since both speelings are in use in different documents, indeed sometimes both spellings exist in the same document!

In any case I migrated across the article in its mature state rather than an earlier state.ALR 11:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that there seems to be a wish to undo the work done on the article previously, in terms of bringing it into line with WP standards etc. Given that I'm not going to get into a petty edit war about it I'm intruiged as to your reasons for removing the bulk of the material in the previous version?ALR 11:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The article had been edited since a mere migration. I am conviced by that edit. Imacomp 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I migrated across the most reliable recent edit, not including material which implied resurection. There was no edit to the article subsequent to my migration, except your reversion. Take a look at the edit histories, and read the article in the state that I migrated across. It does appear to me that you didn't actually read the version that I moved, merely revereted it without any further consideration, which is not particularly constructive.ALR 11:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I migrated, but did not save untill after the edit. This is a substantive edit that you effectively reverted, by re-migrating, etc. I "like" "my" version, at the other end - as it now stands, after reading "your" version. I see no reason to delve deeper for Freemasons, or non-Freemasons alike - as the book that generates casual interest is linked. Imacomp 11:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I would tend to disagree, you may like your version but it is less comprehensive than the article had got to previously, does not meet WP standards for format and structure and only uses one pseudo-historical reference, and that not even explicit. Your migration was clearly from a fairly old version and does not now reflect the volume of work done to it before now (a useful side effect of the nugatory re-direct). I'm not satisfied that you have provideed an improvement with such wholesale removal of effort.ALR 11:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
And now deceptive edit summaries as well. It'd be amusing if we hadn't pretty much been here before.ALR 12:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, and the migration I edited was not "a fairly old version". You jumped in on a work-in-progress, that has been further worked on. A link and ISBN to a real ritual is now given. That the Craft provides no Key or gloss to abbreviations, etc., in published rituals - is deliberate. Imacomp 12:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiram and the Bible

This article implies that Hiram Abif is a biblical figure and mentions masons only in passing, when in fact Hiram Abif does not appear in the bible at all, although Hiram does. To the best of my knowledge, most masons don't claim that Abif was in the bible nor that he was a historical figure. Much of Christian arguments against freemasonry seem to be based on the fact that Abif is not in the bible as well. Of course that souldn't matter because mason's don't view him as a savior or historical figure. This article has completely removed the idea of Abif as a masonic creation. CJames745 06:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as there are biblical citations, I'll take a look and see if they're right. MSJapan 13:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(From the Scottish Rite Journal) Does the name Hiram Abif appear in the Bible?

Yes and no—it depends on which translation you use. Hiram, the cunning worker and widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali, was sent by Hiram King of Tyre to assist King Solomon in building his Temple. Biblical references occur in 2 Chron 2:13, 2 Chron 4:16, and 1 Kings 7:13, 14: le Churam abi; Churam abiv; and Chiram, respectively (note that this is ch as in Channukah).

The Hebrew word, ab, means father, abi, means my father, and abiv, means his father. The expressions Huram my father or Huram his father are probably terms of respect and honor and do not refer to any family relationship. Translators have been uncertain whether to translate the expression as Huram my/his father or Huram-abi of something else. Here are examples of how various translations have handled the name:

2 Chron 2:13 2 Chron 4:16 Martin Luther (1545) Huram-Abif Huram-Abif Geneva Bible (1560) my father Huram’s Huram his father Duoay-Rheims (1609) my father Hiram Hiram his father King James Version (1611) Huram my father’s Huram his father Darby Translation (1890) Huram Abi Huram Abiv Revised Standard Version (1901) Huram-abi Huram-abi Jewish Pub. Soc. (1917) Huram my master craftsman / Huram his master craftsman New International Version (1984) Huram-Abi Huram-Abi

James Anderson in The Constitutions of the Free-Masons (1723) speculated that Abif is the surname of the master builder. While the Masonic use of the name Hiram Abif clearly comes from the Bible, the Hiramic legend itself is purely fiction. SBMorris

The status of the Hiram myth was pretty clear in the previous version of the article, however there has been some determined effort to remove a significant chunk of the material by one editor which has led to this pitiful excuse for an article.ALR 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

Wheres the citaton for the "claim" that there is more than one embellished version? This is plural, and there is only one reference. Zos 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I see ALR is trying to edit this now, and I say again, its the wording that needs fixing. If there is more than one version, please cite it. Otherwise it should read "hiram shows up in a ritual...". This makes more sense, as there is only one ritual you are citing. Understand yet? Zos 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If they are different versions then they need to be cited as it then, it appeared in a sentence. Correct it so it shows that its a double citation. If you are not sure how to do this, just add another set of [1] ref tags right next to the last one. Thanks. Zos 17:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not different versions, it's different rituals, whilst I acknowledge your points about citing them, I don't actually have them so will need to dig out an appropriate publication reference. However I have seen them done, and they are different, but contain the same allegory.ALR 17:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, then please cite the different rituals then, not just saying the first or last name of the authors. Check on how Wikipedia wishes you to cite yor sources please. If you dont have them then how do you know for fact? I see imacomp is the one who added that lone citation. Zos 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Imacomp potentially copied that citation from somewhere that I'd included it previously, I've used it in a number of cases. I understand the value of citations however in the interests of including information, then backing it up, I try not to get anally retentive about it. You asked for examples of different rituals whgich include the Abif allegory, I've provided the information and will tender references when I track them down. Just because I don't have copies of the rituals in question to hand doesn't mean that I've not seen them, and understand the differences. Many lodges work different rituals, one of the interesting aspects of the craft. Of the four craft lodges I belong to not one of them works the same ritual as the others; one works emulation, the other three are published as private prints and are hence not reasonably referencable because they're not generally available to the reader. Taylors and Logic are published and can be sought out, once I've provided the detailed references. Other potential examples are Universal Working, West End Working, Nigerian working, Sussex Craft etc. You should be able to appreciate that with a diverse range of candidate examples then it is reasonable to extract only a handful.ALR 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Look, the way I look at it, as this is based on WP:V, that its not verified. You cannot give a publicaion date, publisher, specific author name, page number, orcorrect title. You've admit you don't even own the copy you are using. It needs to be removed until a proper citation is given. Just b/c you've used it elsewhere doesnt make it right, it just wasnt question yet by anther editor. Zos 18:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced that your present argument is clear. I provided the detail for a reference to Emulation working. Given that I know emulation pretty much by heart I can be pretty sure that I'm wright about what I say. I also know that Taylors working and Logic working differ from Emulation, as does the ritual used in three of the other lodges I belong to (which can make for an interesting time in trying to learn them all). The point is, not everything needs a citation, a number of examples of different ritual are given, in this context I'm not entirely convinced that a citation is needed; personally I would suggest that over-reliance on citation indicates a poorly written article.
In any case, I've been doing some digging on the history of the Hiram Abif article, note the spelling change, which Imacomp redirected here, hence losing the edit history. The line in question was added without any clear attribution, and in a slightly different form, and leads me to believe that it wasn't referring to Freemasonry at all, but rather some of the organisations which hang on its' coat-tails in order to generate some credibility for themselves. Given that the editor in question hasn't actually followed up at all then the thinking behind the addition isn't clear. Naturally the inference from the line can evolve as it develops. Since your main interest is in Thelema I'm intruiged by your interest in this article. I don't know enough about Thelema to know whether Abif appears in that ritual, but I suppose I could ask one of the various Thelemites I know, in order to find out.ALR 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think its clear enough, it wasnt properly cited. Nothing was clear for readers and editors to fact check the source. And stray sentences do need citations. This is still a stub, and when I got here the article only had one citation. And I don't care what you think about usage of citations, I only care about what Wikipedia says about it. If you dont wish to use citations, maybe Wikipedia is not the best place for you.
I am also not interested in the other article form which this one came. I'm only willing to discuss the current article.
My main interst is not in Thelema, if you reviewed my user page you would have seen this. I've only begun to edit Freemasonry related articles. But now that you mention it, Aleister Crowley and Thelema can be linked here in the future (if the lost word section ever splinters off into a main article), from the use of the a book or two I own. But that doesnt mean its to be include here, unless it directly discusses Hiram. Zos 21:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiram in the Bible

ALR, you're going to have to pick which Hiram this article is discussing. Abiff is the builder, so the King needs its own article. Comments about the King of Tyre need to be of topic to Abiff. Zos 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You've highlighted your lack of knowledge about the topic. Hiram Abif(f) doesn't specifically appear in the bible, there are two Hirams mentioned who could reasonably equate to the allegorical figure in Masonic ritual. Whilst it is most likely that the allegorical figure is analogous to Huram Abi there is the potential for the analogue to actually be Hiram King of Tyre; hence there being two candidates. Your point is useful though, I'll think about how to make clear that lack of scriptural clarity about it. Thanks for drawing that out.ALR 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok you got me. I dont spend all day reading the Bible. But the name of the article is Hiram Abiff. The only thing that belong in this article is material relating to this. So let me rephrase. Figure out which hiram the bible is talking about and use it to describe this article. If I knew absolutely everything about this topic it would be much larger I suspect (the same goes for you). Zos 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That's the point, nobody really knows. There are a number of theories, only two of which are credible.ALR 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I see the problem. The intro states that Masonically, Hiram Abiff is not the same as the King of Tyre, and then the article body says he might be. There needs to be some rewording or clarification to correct the inconsistency. Moreover, the theories are not outlined clearly, and I can't fix it because I'm not aware of said theories. MSJapan 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is glossing printed rituals with speculations. And no one person speaks for the whole of Freemasonry. Imacomp 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One author says

The inclusion of "One author says" is redundant to the sentence. Of course one author is saying this, there is only one citation there. Also, we we need to sort something out here. There are no notes in the article, so I changed it to reference, where the citations go. Then, you add the full book to the section called "sources". Zos 01:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No it is not redundant. That is in itself mere opinion. And even for (claimed) insiders - no one person speaks for the whole of Freemasonry. Imacomp 01:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt an opinion. Its a statement out of a reference book. Zos 01:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The lost word

"This is mere speculation, since he does not claim to be the official spokesman of any Grand Lodge, and no one person speaks for the whole of Freemasonry.[4] Many disclosures and exposés usually lack the proper context for true understanding, are soon outdated for various reasons, or are garnished with unfounded speculation on the part of the author.[5]"

This small paragraph is an argument. No one is claiming that my reference is an official spokesman of Freemasonry. And the proceding statement is just plain aweful. Its being removed. Zos 01:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
All cited statments will be put back. (Copied from other articles, and cited in same way). Imacomp 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
NOTE I did not start the current revert war. Will be back after 24hrs. "Freemason" editors' loyality to the Craft is noted in atempts at tin pot "disclosures". At least take 30 bits of silver for your trouble guys? Imacomp 23:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there no help for the widows son? Zos 23:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you say no help for fatherless editors? How rude of you.(BS recognition attempt failed) Imacomp 23:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Correction - that is Weasel not Weasal of the 30 coins. PS why are some editors still sporting Barnstars from banned editors? Imacomp 00:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question re: Hiram in Freemasonry

The first line of this section states: "David Allen Hulse states that Hiram is a name given to the gavel of the Worshipful Master in Freemasonry" but the citation is to "Mackey, Lexicon of Freemasonry; page 192" ... is it Hulse or Mackey? (and if Hulse is quoting Mackey, it is better to go with the original. In which case we should say "Mackey's Lexicon states that...") No objection to the line being in the Article, just want to get the correct citation.

I do have a suggestion for this section... It basicly relys on only one source. Not the best thing by Wiki standards. Another citation (and/or contrary view points) would be good. May I suggest John Robinson's "A Pilgrim's Path"... he has a very good section on the whole Hiram story. I would add it myself, but I just returned the book to the library and so can not get the page refs. Blueboar 23:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Its Mackey. Someone must have changed it when they didnt like the way the lost key section was written, adding "Hulse says this" "hulse says that" to the beginning of every statement. In my oinion, this is bad writing. Of course its the author stating this!, this is what the citation is for, after all.
As for it only relying on one source, so do many articles. We just have to wait until more wish to add to the article, expanding it until its not a stub anymore. Zos 00:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
OK... as someone who does like to attribute statements to their authors in the main text, I do think we should include one statement along the lines of "(Author? Historian?) David Allen Hulse has written that,..." before we discuss his theories on Hiram. But I agree that you do not need it before every sentence. Blueboar 12:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I fixed my citation. The sentences need to be cited, removing it should not have been done. Also, the citation point to the reference. And the reference is supposed to be the full reference with the ISBN number. This is how its done, so I dont know why you persist in making changes to both my statements, and my citation. Although I'm noticing that you want to do work on this article Blueboar...you might wish to find some source of your own to mess with. Zos 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Zos, please don't jump to conclusions ... I was not trying to "remove" anything (at least not on purpose)... all I was trying to do was format the citation correctly. I have been taught that the first time you cite something, the full title, ISBN etc. needs to be put in the cite. (subsequent ones can be cited as simply: "Hulse, page 12" or what ever.)
Looking back at it, I think what happened is that we simply have different different concepts of what goes in the "notes" section and what goes in the "references" section. I was thinking of the "refferences" section as a "see also"... ie articles, books and webpages that are not already specificly mentioned as a citation. Since hulse had been mentioned as a citation (ie in the "notes"), I thought it correct to not mention him again in "references". You are obviously treating the "references" section as a bibliography (ie any book, etc. that was used to gather information for the article). Neither of us is wrong (both systems are used extensively in wikipedia articles).
As for finding some source of my "own" to mess with... once something goes into an article, it ceases to be "mine" or "yours"... it belongs to the article and anyone can "mess" with it (ie try to improve it). I think you are assuming that just because we had a disagreement in another article, I will automatically be antagonistic to you in every article. I assure you that this is not the case. My only "agenda" is to improve the article. Blueboar 17:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I know you werent "trying" to remove anything, in fact you did remove my citation. The citation was already done correctly. I understand the mistake, I'm just letting you know it was done correctly, and I don't wish you to move it again.
The notes section is for small notes and basically where you got certain statements in the article. The note should be easilie understandable, so when you go to the section called references, you can see the full title.
When I said find your own sources to mess with, I meant for you to find a source to use in the article, if you want to work on this article. I don't see the removal of citations being of any help to an article (on purpose or accident). And I'm assuming nothing (from any other talk page). I'm merely asking that if you wish to contribute, please do so, but use your own sources, stop trying to change my statements and removing my citations. Zos 17:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Come on Zos, I am not trying to change your statments or removing your citations... I did MOVE a citation to where I thought it should go, but I kept it intact. As for "using my own sorces"... there are two ways to work on an article... 1) adding information, and 2) trying to improve what is already in the article. My edits were intended as the latter. I saw what to me was an error in the formatting of the citation, and I corrected it. I am used to a certain style, the style we use on all the other Freemasonry related articles... I'm not saying it's correct, just what I am used to. Now that I understand the citation style you prefer, I can conform the rest of the citations (or notes) to match. Then I can go looking for new material and new sources to add. Please don't be so defensive about "your" work. This is a collaberative effort. Blueboar 19:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK... a question ... so that all the references conform to one standard... should we do: Author, Title, Publishing Info... or should we do Title, Author, Publishing Info? Blueboar 19:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind... I looked it up in the guidelines... all have been conformed to one style. Please note that I did NOT (intentionally) remove anything or change anything beyond moving names, titles, and publishing info around so that everything conforms. However, please check your citations to ensure that any information you put is still there (just in case.) Blueboar 20:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thats a right out lie. This is one example of what I mean by changing my statements. And here is another exmample, to which you state above that you disagree with adding this kind of thing into an article (see you're own remark on this section of the talk page to which you say this: But I agree that you do not need it before every sentence.
So please don't think me a total moron. When I say that I think you are changing things around, know that I can back it up with proof. Also, when someone puts a stub tag on the page, this is not vandalism. I'm refering to this. I'm putting the stub back on. It may not be an occult stub, but it is in fact a stub. Zos 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem with the stub tag... I did have a problem with the "occult" stub, but I know that was not your doing. Blueboar 22:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durham, Reed - No Help for the Widow's Son

While looking for the publishing info on this reference, I found an on-line version... the talk seems to be about the ties between the Mormon Church and Freemasonry, and only mentions Hiram Abif (twice) in passing. Currently, nothing in the article points to it as a citation ... so it may be an orphaned reference (i.e. someone may have added it to cite a statement that was subsequently cut, but the citation was not cut along with it. Does anyone object if I remove this reference? Blueboar 20:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one seems to object after a due period of time has passed, I shall do so. Blueboar 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stub category

We seem to have some difficulty deciding on what category this falls under as far as the stub tag goes... It had gone from just "stub" (acceptable, but undefined) to "Occult" (not), back to just "stub", and then to "History"... This last was not really applicable, as the Hiram legend is not really history. If anything it is an "organizational" stub, as it deals with part of the foundation myth and rituals of Freemasonry. What we really need is a "Freemasonry" stub, but I don't know how to create one. Blueboar 15:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the stub back to just a stub tag. This isnt an organization article, its an article about a a fictional/mysthological person in Freemasonry. Please just leave it at stub until someone creates a Masonic stub.
And if it dealt with the foundation of Freemasonry, I'd like to think more people would be over here adding to it, relieving it of its stub status. Zos 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem leaving the stub as just "stub". Re: foundation myth... Freemasonry's rituals use the allegorical story of the Fraternity being created by the workmen building King Solomon's Temple. The Hiram story fits into that.
Does anyone out there know how to make a template for stubs? We need one for freemasonry so this stub problem can get fixed. Zos 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll ask on the main Freemasonry page. Blueboar 23:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
{{fm-stub}} OzLawyer 23:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops, forgot that stub templates have to be proposed, so that one will be deleted. I'll propose it. OzLawyer 00:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The proposal is here. OzLawyer 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations to Pike

User 69.150.57.227 added "Pike" (I assume Morals and Dogma) as a citation to back the statements in the first paragraph. I checked, and Pike simply does not discuss the statements being made. I suspect that this was added as subtle vandalism, so I have reverted back to the citation needed tags. I am sure that we can find REAL citations that actually do back up what the article says. (Looks like I am going to have to borrow Robinson's A Pilgrim's Path from the library again... I know he discusses all this.) Blueboar 02:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, the citations were done wrong!
You start by naming the multiple reference:
  • <ref name="pike">Pike, year, page</ref>
Then use it for other statements like this:
  • <ref name="pike"/>
Zos 03:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More things removed...

The Duncan citation was to the MMM, so it's not any good (there's no Hiram anybody in it), and the Hulse citation contradicted itself as written, so I removed it as well. There's very little here of interest save Knight and Lomas' theory. Do we have anything we can put in here? MSJapan 19:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that I know of. And while you removed the citations, you forgot to remove the mention under references. I took care of that. Blueboar 19:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation based on concordance

The additions yesterday seem to me to be mainly speculation and probably constitute Original Research. I'd be grateful for the provision of a secondary source which makes the statements offered, otherwise it's not sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the article.ALR 09:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following:
In essence, an interesting consequence of the name Hiram or Huram is that it could mean literally "a man that has a pure whiteness like linen". This is an interesting concept since moral purification is key to having a pure, clean and "white" conscience. God requires us to be pure and clean in order to be in His presesnce (sins washed away being clean). This also tied to the fact that Masons, during ceremonies, wear a linen apron may hold a deep spiritual meaining for the group.
To me this is clearly the opinion of the editor and not part of Strong's Concordance. As such it constitues Original Research. Blueboar 13:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I appreciate your candor on this, and still believe that the first sentence above makes sense, however I would agree that the last two are somewhat of an opinion based upon my "original research". If I do find additional information on this I will repost with the other information. Thank you for not jumping to call all that I did "vandalism" because I do believe that meanings behind names are important in the study of the Bible. deazwe

It was obviously not vandalism... just Original Research. You can't add your own ideas to Wikipedia, you have to paraphrase what reliable sources say (with citations). Blueboar 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the remaining portions of this speculation. The Semitic name חִירוֹם, (Chiyram) though not mentioned in the Bible as "Abiff," is the obvious origin for the Masonic figure, rather real or perceived. So its etymology is relevant to the article. It is masculine and related to Chiyra, which would be the 'noble' family, in essence, and 'Achiyram, (my brother is exalted) the source of the English name Hyrum.

Since Hiram is a king of Tyre in the Bible, his name, though recorded in Hebrew, is certainly not a name specifically of Hebrew origin, and any real etymology would note that it was probably native to a different West Semitic dialect closer to Phonecian or Canaanite.

At any rate, students of Biblical etymology who do not know Hebrew are not qualified to pull out their Strong's, go to work, and come up with conclusions that are then ready for entry as Wikipedia encyclopedic content. This does not count as 'in-depth study' of the Hebrew words, as indicated, and is definetely original research not sourced in accordance with Wikipedia requirements.

I ask for further input from Wiki editors to either sustain the removal, or to correctly source the name's etymology. Brando130

I agree with your removal. An editor's interpretation is OR... we would need an expert's study to include it. Blueboar 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/r/Talk%7EHiram_Abiff_6ed3.html"