Building of Solomon's Temple, The [Laws Q39]

DESCRIPTION: A Masonic ballad referring to Solomon as a "freemason king"! The ballad details the building of the Jerusalem temple, including the vast crews which worked on it. The end of the ballad concerns modern Freemasonry
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: 1821 (National Library of Scotland chapbook)
KEYWORDS: royalty Bible
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
c. 960-c. 921 B.C.E. - Reign of King Solomon in Israel. (Both dates have about a ten year margin for error.) Solomon began to build the Temple early in his "fourth year" (i.e. c. 957); he finished it seven years and six months later
FOUND IN: Canada(Mar) Britain(Scotland(Aber))
REFERENCES (7 citations):
Laws Q39, "The Building of Solomon's Temple"
Huntington-SongsTheWhalemenSang, pp. 309-312, "Song of Solomon's Temple" (1 text, 1 tune)
Greig-FolkSongInBuchan-FolkSongOfTheNorthEast #148, pp. 1-2, "The Building of Solomon's Temple" (1 text)
Greig/Duncan3 467, "The Freemason King" (4 texts, 1 tune)
Mackenzie-BalladsAndSeaSongsFromNovaScotia 159, "The Building of Solomon's Temple" (1 text, 1 tune)
cf. Gardner/Chickering-BalladsAndSongsOfSouthernMichigan, p. 480, "King Solomon's Temple" (source notes only)
DT 546, SOLTEMPL
Roud #1018
BROADSIDES:
Bodleian, Firth c.21(41), "The-Free Mason King," The Poet's Box (Glasgow), 1858; also Firth b.34(115)=Firth c.21(40)=Harding B 25(687), "The Free Mason King"; M. W. Carrall (York), n.d.
NLScotland, L.C.2826(35), "The Building of Solomon's Temple," T. Johnston (Falkirk), 1821 (often illegible)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "The Rules of Masonry" (theme: Building the First Temple)
cf. "The Plumb and Level" (theme: Building the First Temple)
NOTES [8794 words]: The earliest verifiable copy of this known to me, National Library of Scotland copy (a chapbook which also contains "Maggie's Lament") says this is "A new song by a brother of St. Luke's Lodge, Edinburgh." Certainly it is by a mason -- but one, I think, with a good bit of education. It has a "derry down" chorus that has been dropped in many other versions.
[The NLS copy may not be the very earliest. Michael Taft points out to me an item listed as of or by or about "The Maryland Ahiman Rezon, of Free & Accepted Masons," by Baltimore: W. Pechin for George Keatinge, 1797, with first line "In history we read of an ancient old King" and 21 stanzas. We can't be sure it's this, but it's a candidate.]
The Maryland broadside is interesting, because there seem to be no American field collections. But it likely was sung in America -- Walter Kittredge, who wrote "Tenting Tonight," reported singing a song with a similar name: "My repertoire of songs include such old things as 'King Solomon's Temple' [and] 'The Bachelor's Woe'.... 'King Solomon's Temple,' I remember, was a favorite among the Freemasons.... The music for 'King Solomon's Temple' I composed myself, as, in fact, I came to do more or less with all my songs [that I performed]" (Carter, pp. 19-20). True, the song had a British tune -- but if it came to be known in America from broadsides, then it was obviously fair game to have a tune fitted. Unfortunately, I have not found Kittredge's text to be able to know if it is this song.
The building of the (first) Jerusalem Temple occupies chapters 5-8 of 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles chapters 2-6 (with a foreshadowing in 1 Chron. 28-29 and elsewhere). The account in Kings is the primary source for Chronicles, although the Chronicler either had a secondary source or made up a bunch of things; in neither case should the Chronicles account be trusted. 1 Kings Chapter 5 describes the preparations (negotiations with Tyre, gathering of the materials, and -- in 5:13-18 -- the assembly of the laborers); Chapter 6 the building; Chapter 7 the furnishings (with an aside about Solomon's other projects), and Chapter 8 the dedication.
Early Freemasons made at least two attempts to link their rituals to events in the Jewish Bible. The earliest surviving record, which Béresniak, p. 26, attributes to "the Regius Manuscript," perhaps from c. 1400, claims that the guild goes back to not long after the Flood. It makes "Nemrod" the first mason. "Nemrod" is the Latin Vulgate spelling of the king who is called "Nimrod" in the English versions of Genesis 10:8-10; he was "the first on earth to become a mighty warrior" and built a kingdom around Babel, Erech, and Akkad. It is presumably on this basis the Regius Manuscript asserts that he was responsible for the Tower of Babel, and that made Nimrod the first mason. But the account of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 never mentions Nimrod.
The Nimrod story had a vogue for a while, but it seems to be out of favor with the Freemasons now. The link between the Masons and Solomon's Temple is almost as old, and it is still quasi-doctrine. Masonic legend says that "The living channels of the Secret Tradition in Israel -- otherwise the successive mouthpieces... are Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, and then -- after long ages... Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai [Shimon bar Yochai, or Rashbi] at the beginning of the Christian Dispensation" (Waite, volume I, p. 260). Thus Solomon is considered an important transmitter of masonic tradition -- indeed, they regard him as their founder. Béresniak, p. 26, quotes the "Cooke Manuscript," which he dates to 1410, as saying "Solomon himself taught them [the workers] their methods (that is to say their traditions and practices) which are not very different from those of today."
Waite, p. 140, says of the Cooke manuscript, "The second of the old Constitutions or Charges in point of date is in prose -- like the long subsequent series -- and is referred to the early portion of the fifteenth century or alternately to the latter portion. The year 1430 has been proposed as an approximate date.... The original editor, Mr. Matthew Cooke, conjectured that it was 'used in Assemblies of Masons as a textbook of the traditional histories and laws of the Fraternity,' and this is at least a sound description of the contents. It opens with the praise of the liberal sciences, especially geometry, out of which came Masonry, instituted no longer by Euclid but by Jabal among the children of Lamech" (referring to Genesis 10, as above).
Waite, pp. 140-141, says that it describes three pillars inscribed with wisdom which were found after the flood by Pythagoras and Hermes. It mentions Nemrod and Babel, but doesn't connect him with Masonry; rather "It was Abraham in later days who taught Euclid Masonry [never mind that they lived a thousand-odd years apart!], but it was Euclid who called it geometry, and he who instructed Egypt. The craft of Masonry was learned by Israel in the land of bondage and they carried it into Palestine, where David and Solomon favoured and protected Masons." It then skips ahead to Charlemagne and St. Alban of England. Obviously it's completely impossible historically.
The Cooke Manuscript is British Library, MS. Additional 23198. A digitized copy can be seen at the British Library site. The British Library site merely dates it fifteenth century. It is in English; glancing at it, the hand would be compatible with a 1410 date, I think, but the English... all I can say is, it seems pretty modern for an early fifteenth century book.
The Library's description of it as a book on geometry is not very accurate by our current standards; it mentions geometry a lot, but it doesn't give diagrams or propositions; the sections I read looked more like Bible stories mixed with mumbo-jumbo. (But the Masons said that "The fifth science is geometry, also known as Masonry"; Béresniak, p. 50.) It's not just about Solomon; as Waite said, folio 11r (e.g.)mentions Jabal and Jubal, the ancestors of herdsmen and of musicians, mentioned in Genesis 4:20-21; there are many other Biblical allusions. But it does mention David and Solomon -- folio 23v says, e.g., that "Kyng Dauid loued well masons," with much of this story on the following pages.
The Cooke Manuscript a tiny little book, just 105x85 mm (about four inches by three and a third).I note that the book was never quite finished; it is illuminated with color penwork, but this ceases on folio 27v; folio 28r-38r have no illuminations. I see that it has almost no corrections or alterations. This surely means that the scribe was not making up his account as he went along; he was copying an earlier document. So there was a source document older (although probably not much older, given the relatively modern English) than the manuscript itself. And the legend was evidently popular; Waite, pp. 141-146, lists a great many manuscripts which repeat, expand, and retell the story; some are described as almost as ancient as Cooke although some of Waite's statements make sound very dubious paleographically. Waite, p. 147, seems to imply that these others are directly descended from Cooke, with additions; I would not wish to bet that they are actually descended from it, but presumably they derive from the same groups of people.
This song is another (obviously much more recent) version of the tale found in Cooke. The signs of Freemason origin in this song are clear and strong, and it includes several instances of Masonic legend that have absolutely no Biblical basis.
Incidentally, the reference to the Temple as "Solomon's Temple" is significant. There were, depending on how you count it, two or three Jerusalem Temples: Solomon's (the First Temple, destroyed when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E.), the second or post-Exilic Temple, and Herod the Great's Temple (destroyed by the Romans in 69 C.E.). Herod's Temple was a dramatic expansion and improvement of the Second Temple, so much larger that it is sometimes regarded as the Third Temple, but it had continuity with the Second, so they are usually regarded as one.
What is more, the Freemasons, although they regarded the building of Solomon's Temple as a founding event, also regarded the building of the Second Temple as important (and for that matter they have their own Temples). Without going into too much detail, after the Persians had freed the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity in 539 B.C., there were two attempts to resettle Judah. The first accomplished little, but a second attempt, approved by the Persian Emperor Darius I in 520 B.C.E., was more ambitious. It was headed by the High Priest Jeshua/Joshua and by Zerubababel, considered the heir of David and of Solomon. (There were about seventeen generations between Solomon and Zerubabbel, though there is some murkiness in the genealogy.) The story of the founding of the Second Temple is told in chapters 1-6 of the Book of Ezra, and is also the main subject of the book of Haggai and the early chapters of the book of Zechariah. Because Zerubabbel was the Davidide present at the founding of the Second Temple, it is often called Zerubabbel's Temple (so the masons, e.g.) -- although it appears that Zerubabbel had vanished or been removed by the Persians by the time the Temple was finished (Myers-Ezra, pp. xxix-xxx; Bright, p. 372. Haggai 2:20-23 is a promise to Zerubbabel of success building the Temple -- and the book breaks off there. Zechariah 6 is an account of the crowning of... somebody; two crowns are mentioned, but the only one crowned is Jeshua the High Priest; it seems clear that the account has been revised to take out Zerubabbel. And the account of the completion of the Temple in Ezra 6:13-18 never mentions Zerubabbel.)
As we shall see, the account in this song is based entirely on the account in Chronicles of the building of the First Temple; there is no material whatsoever that is specific to the account in Kings, and where Kings and Chronicles differ, the song either follows Chronicles or has something that agrees with neither. I do not know the reason for this peculiar choice, unless it is simply that Chronicles gives an even more glowing picture of Solomon than Kings (despite the fact that Solomon's excessive spending and lack of attention to problems of governance destroyed the Empire that his father ha built; he may have been good at proverb-making, but he was a lousy king); in Judaism, Chronicles was held in low esteem compared to other books of the Bible (Kings was one of the prophetic books, Chronicles merely one of the "Writings," and the very last of the writings in canonical order), and Kings also comes earlier in Christian Bibles. Moreover, the Kings account is clearly more reliable; a number of the changes made by the "Chronicler" (the name used for the author of Chronicles, who may have been Ezra the scribe but may not have been) are so dramatic as to amount to historical distortion.
Looking at the versions available to me, it appears that this song was rewritten at least once, because no version contains all the various references. Possibly there was an attempt to remove (or add!) Masonic references.
I can't hope to produce a commentary on every version, but I'll take a few versions and try to annotate. The versions are:
-- The Falkirk chapbook in the National Library of Scotland, printed in 1821. A full text. This is the earliest version known to me, and probably close to the original, but it appears to have been printed on very cheap paper with much bleeding-through of ink. The NLS scans are unreadable at many points, so at times I have simply had to ignore its reading or conjecture parts of it. Some of the less certain readings I have marked with a "?" to indicate that I won't swear to the text I cite. Cited as "Falkirk."
-- Huntington's version, from the 1827 log of the Galaxy, written by Ira Poland, cited as "Galaxy."
-- Mackenzie's version, from Richard Hines, Pictou County, Nova Scotia, cited as "Hines."
-- The several Bodleian broadsides. Several of them contain more than one version of this song, but there appear to be just two versions. The longer is the 1858 Poet's Box broadside, which appears to be disordered but at least tells the full story; it is cited as "PoetsBox." The shorter, undated, broadside was printed by M. W. Carrall; between its brevity and its disorder, it misses much detail. It is cited as "Carrall."
Notes on the various versions:
"Mount Moriah" (Falkirk, Galaxy, Hines, Carrall)/"Mount Horeb" (PoetsBox): This name "Mount Moriah" is nowhere used in 1 Kings; the Temple site is simply the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, which David bought in 2 Samuel 24:18-25 . (It is not explicitly said that the Temple will be built there; Myers-2Ch, p. 17). In 2 Chronicles, the seller's name becomes "Ornan the Jebusite" (there is much uncertainty about the exact name even in 2 Samuel; McCarter, p. 512; possibly this helps explain the change). Also, the price David paid is much increased. The threshing floor is said in 2 Chronicles 3:1 to be on Mount Moriah. "Moriah" is mentioned elsewhere only in Genesis 22:2, where the reference is to the land of Moriah, where Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac (Myers-2Ch, p. 16, thinks that the author of Chronicles used the name to connect the building of the Temple with the Abraham's act, hinting that the Temple Mount was not otherwise known as Mount Moriah).
The reading "Mount Horeb" of PoetsBox is a pure error; "Mount Horeb" is the name used in the writings of the Deuteronomic school for the mountain other witnesses call "Mount Sinai," the place where Moses received the law. (There are three instances of "Horeb" in Exodus -- 3:1, 17:6, 33:6, all thought to be from the so-called "E" source -- but the name occurs nine times in Deuteronomy: 1:2, 6, 19, 4:10, 4:15, 5:2, 9:8, 18:6, 29:1. this is more than half the 17 Biblical uses. "Sinai" is twice as common in the Hebrew Bible, and is the only name used in the New Testament. There has been much theorizing about the reason for the two names, but no definitive answer.) Although not as commonly used as "Sinai," "Horeb" is a much more familiar name than "Mount Moraih," which probably explains the slip.
"Him that slew Goliath" (Falkirk?, Galaxy)/"He who conquered Goliath" (Hines)/"He that slew Goliath" (PoetsBox): obviously referring to David the father of Solomon; the story of David and Goliath is told (twice) in 1 Samuel 17.
"He gave all the pattern in writing to me" (Falkirk): According to 1 Chronicles, it was David who gave Solomon the plan of the Temple: "Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlours thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat, And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of the LORD, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries of the dedicated things..." (1 Ch 28:11-12; the list of details continues through 28:19. Modern translations tend to use "plan" instead of "pattern"; so, e.g., NRSV, Myers-1Ch, p. 188). There is no hint, in 1 Kings, of anyone giving Solomon a "pattern"; 1 Kings "attributes everything to Solomon as far as the planning and execution of the project were concerned," whereas in Chronicles it is "credited to the divinely inspired mind of David" (Myers-1Ch, p. 192).
"And purchased that ground for to raise that design" (Hines): As mentioned above, David purchased the threshing floor of Araunah/Ornan the Jebusite in 2 Samuel 24:18-25=1 Chronicles 21:18-30 (interestingly, this is one of the rare places where the Chronicler significantly expands the account in Samuel rather than cutting it down). In the run-up to this, David had decided to take a census of Israel (in 2 Samuel 24:1, God incited him to do it; in 1 Ch 21:1, it's Satan). After some negotiations between God and David about how God would punish David for it, God sent a severe plague, which supposedly stopped at Araunah's threshing floor. So David bought the floor to build an altar, plus the accessories for sacrifice -- paying the very low price of 50 shekels of silver in 2 Samuel 24:24 and the absurdly high price of 600 shekels of gold in 1 Ch 21:25.
"He ordered King Solomon... To finish the building that he [David] had begun" (Galaxy, Hines)/"And ordered young Solomon, he being his son, To rear up the strongholds which he had begun" (PoetsBox): If this is supposed to be the Temple, it is an error to say that David had begun it; David had proposed to build a permanent home for the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Samuel 7:2, but the prophet Nathan conveyed word that God forbade it; David's son would build the Temple. (Every serious source analysis of 2 Samuel that I have seen regards the bit about David's son building the Temple as a later addition or as altered by editorial glue as sources were combined -- for a list of those who thought so, see e.g. McCarter, pp. 210-211 -- but the author of Chronicles, who wrote his work half a millennium after Kings, took the notion that it had originally been David's idea and seized on it.) The command to Solomon is made explicit in 1 Chronicles 21-22 and 28, where David buys Ornan's land and tells Solomon to build the Temple; in 1 Chronicles 29, we read about all the supplies and contributions David gathered for the work. Thus, in the view of Chronicles, David was largely responsible for the building, although Solomon oversaw it. In Samuel, David's role is much smaller; Chronicles extensively rewrites to make David the perfect king and give him an important planning role (Myers-1Ch, p. 191, etc.).
On the other hand, the line does not explicitly say that Solomon was to finish the Temple that David had begun -- just that Solomon was to finish some project or other. There were other buildings of David that Solomon really did improve or complete. For example, 2 Samuel 5:9 and 1 Chronicles 11:8 refer to David building the Millo, thought to be a "filling" in the walls of the City of David, and 1 Kings 9:24, 11:27 refer to Solomon working on the Millo.
"King Solomon... numbered all the workmen that was in the land" (Galaxy, Hines): in 2 Chronicles 2:17 we read that Solomon took a census of all the "strangers" (i.e. foreigners, aliens); in 1 Kings 5:13 we read that Solomon conscripted forced labor but there is no mention of a census or of having only "strangers" do the work (Myers-2Ch, p. 10).
"Seventy thousand to bear burden he then did reserve; Eighty thousand on the mountain to hew, cut, and carve. Three thousand six hundred he ordered to be The masters of workmen and [Hines "for"] to oversee" (Falkirk, Hines; PoetsBox has only the last two lines)/"Four thousand five hundred he kept in reserve, Eight thousand in the mountains to cut him and carve" (Galaxy)//"One thousand for Jerusalem he did reserve, Seven thousand to the mountains to cut and carve" (Carrall): 1 Kings 5:15 says that Solomon had 70,000 burden-bearers and 80,000 hewing stone in the mountains; 5:16 adds that 3300 oversaw the work, 2 Chronicles 2:2 and 2:18 says that 70,000 bore burdens, 80,000 hewed stone, and 3600 were overseers. Thus Hines has the exact numbers found in Chronicles (but differs from Kings), though the Bible never says anything about a "reserve." Galaxy's and Carrall's numbers don't match any of the Biblical sources. (But transmission of numbers is notoriously bad through generations of repetition; one suspects that "eight thousand in the mountains," at least, is a transmission error for "eighty thousand.")
"Orange and blue" (Falkirk, Galaxy, Hines, PoetsBox): Non-biblical -- indeed, the word "orange" never appears in the Bible (at least in the King James and New Revised Standard versions). Freemasons, when entering the society, are said to have been enrolled in the "Blue Lodge." Further, the Master Mason wore a blue apron (Waite, volume II, p. 115). I couldn't find a Masonic link between blue and orange, though. (Roman Catholics in Ireland sometimes linked the Orange Order and Masons, but the Masons would not make that link, and in any case that's Ireland, and the best indications are that this song was Scottish in origin -- at least, that's where the oldest texts are from.) Waite, volume I, p. 150, mentions a "Loyal and Friendly Society of Blue and Orange," but it wasn't actually a society of Masons, and it was based in Leicester Fields; it isn't likely to have been well known to our author.
"Then Solomon a letter to Tyre did send" (Falkirk, Carrall)/"Then straightway to Tyre a letter he sent" (Hines)/"Straight into Tyre a letter did send" (PoetsBox): The order in Hines violates the Biblical sequence of events (the contact with Tyre came before the Temple was begun), but the request is Biblical: 1 Kings 5:2 says that Solomon sent to Hiram, who was identified as King of Tyre in 5:1 (although no letter is mentioned; one suspects that Solomon sent a messenger); 2 Ch 2:3 says Solomon sent to "Huram the king of Tyre." (Although Chronicles sometimes calls him "Huram," the name "Hiram" is the one usually used today.)
David's Israel and Hiram's Tyre seem to have had a mutually beneficial relationship; Tyre's superior culture and engineering skills gave them the ability to design and build a Temple that was beyond the capabilities of still-primitive Israel; Israel could supply food to relatively barren Tyre.
Bright, p. 218, goes so far as to declare, "The Temple was built by a Tyrian architect (1 Kings 7:13f.) after a pattern then current in Palestine and Syria. Rectangular in shape, it faced to the east, with two free-standing pillars (v. 21), presumably bearing dynastic oracles, in front of it. The building itself consisted first of a vestibule, then the main hall of the sanctuary, the 'Holy Place' (hekhal), a large rectangular chamber lighted by small windows under the roof; and, finally, at the read, the 'Holy of Holies' (debîr), a small windowless cube where reposed the Ark. There in his earthly house the invisible Yahweh was conceived of as enthroned, guarded by two giant cherubim. The Temple was begun in Solomon's fourth year (ca. 959), completed seven years late (ch. 6:37f.), and dedicated with great ceremony, Solomon himself residing (ch. 8)." Bright's description need not be taken as assured -- InterpretersDict, Volume IV, pp. 534-538, shows several other floorplans and proposed reconstructions -- but all agree on the strong Phoenician element. (Frankly, if anyone should be the "freemason king," it should be Hiram, since he was the one whose people had the technical skills.)
"Hoping king Hiram he would him befriend" (Falkirk)/"Requesting King Hiram for to be his friend" (Hines)/"Beseeching King Hiram to stand him a friend" (PoetsBox); Galaxy mentions Hiram elsewhere but not here): The proper name of the king the Bible calls Hiram or Huram was Ahiram, son of Abibaal, but consistently called "Hiram" in Samuel and Kings (with the equally incorrect "Huram" found only in Chronicles). His approximate dates of reign were 969-936 B.C.E. in William F. Albright's chronology (Bright, p. 204 n. 45), in which David reigned roughly 1000-961 B. C. E. and Solomon roughly 961-922. (This is based on some citations of Menander by Josephus, who says that Hiram was in the eleventh or twelfth year of his reign when Solomon began the Temple in the fourth year of the latter's reign; McCarter, p. 145. Albright's chronology is far from assured; we don't have a reliable date peg until the Battle of Qarqar in 853, when we know Ahab was King of Israel. Masonic tradition claims the Temple was dedicated in 1000 B.C.E. -- Béresniak, p. 18 -- but I don't think any serious scholar would accept a date that early).
Whatever the exact date, Josephus's testimony indicates that Hiram came to the throne late in David's reign and continued through more than half of Solomon's. (There is one reference to him early in David's reign, in 2 Samuel 5:11=1 Ch. 14:1, but this is either a reference to his father or a misplaced element.) Hiram is mentioned 16 times in 1 Kings (nine times in chapter 5, five in chapter 9, 2 in chapter 10); 2 Chronicles has eight references to either "Hiram" or "Huram." (The difference in the number of citations, it seems to me, is that the Chronicler downplays the role of the Tyrians, attributing more of the design and building to Solomon himself. But it seems pretty clear that all the brainwork was done by the Phoenicians; Israel supplied the money and the forced labor but couldn't have pulled it off on their own.)
As regards Solomon asking Hiram to be his friend, In 1 Kings 5:1, it is Hiram who writes first to Israel: "And Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants unto Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the room [place] of his father." 2 Ch suppresses this, in line with its policy of elevating the Davidic dynasty, having Solomon make the first move to contact Tyre (2 Ch. 2:3). Probably this is hair-splitting, but if the author of this song is precisely following either account, instead of just loosely recounting, the account he's following is Chronicles.
Like Hiram Abiff (below), Hiram had his own standard Masonic abbreviation, H~K~T=Hiram, King of Tyre (Waite, volume I, p. xviii).
"Send him that cunning workman call'd Hiram the brave" (Falkirk)/"Sent a gay cunning craftsman called Hiram Bereaf" (Hines)/"Sent him that cunning craftsman Hiram the brave" (Carrall)/"Send that craft workman called Haron the brave" (PoetsBox): This is perhaps the most explicitly Masonic item in the whole song -- and to some extent the meaning depends on whether the original read "Hiram the brave" or "Hiram Bereaf" or something else. Mackenzie suggests that "Hiram Bereaf" is "the Hiram Abiff of masonic tradition," This is all but certain supposition if Hines's reading is correct -- Abif (the spelling used on volume I, p. 366 of Waite, although he spells it "Abiff" on p. xvii) was genuinely part of Masonic legend, a symbol of their keeping their secrets.
But why "Hiram Abiff"? In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 7:13-14 reads, "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 [=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." 2 Ch 2:13-14 offers "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, skilful 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...."
But the Hebrew of Chronicles does not say "of Huram my father's." It says, literally, "of Huram-abi" (or "Huramabi") and is so rendered in, e.g., the New Revised Standard Version and in Myers-2Ch, p. 9. "-abi" is the root for "father," so Huram-abi is "Huram-father," hence the King James rendering. Others interpret this variously, e.g. the earliest texts of the Septuagint Greek (B* 55 127) offered "Chiram my father," most other Greek texts (A V B**) "Chiram my servant." The Revised English Bible interprets father more broadly and suggests "my expert Huram," while the Jewish Tanakh translation proposes "my master Huram." Is -abi part of the artisan's name, or part of his title? Opinion is divided but tends toward the former.
Possibly the change in names from Kings to Chronicles is explained by the fact that Chronicles expands Huramabi's portfolio: not only does he work in bronze, as in Kings, he works in many other materials. This is similar to the two craftsmen Bezalel and Oholiab, who in Exodus 31 built the tabernacle that was the center of the Israeli cult prior to the making of the Temple. It has been suggested (e.g. InterpretersDict, volume 2, p. 664) that the name "Huramabi" was made by combining "Huram" with the element "-ab" of Oholiab. This would also explain why the Chronicler made his mother a Danite woman; Oholiab was from the tribe of Dan. (But, also, the lands of the tribe of Dan were closer to Tyre, so it makes sense anyway that a Tyrian an a Danite would marry.)
Bottom line: The name "Hiram Abif" is surely derived from "Huramabi." But how the masons found the name "Huramabi" -- which is not in either the King James or Geneva Bible -- is complicated and apparently runs through the Kabbalah. Waite, volume I, pp. 366-367, says that "The Legend of the Master-Builder is the great allegory of Masonry. It happens that is figurative story is grounded on the fact of a personality mentioned in the Holy Scripture, but this historical background is of the accidents and not the essence" -- and then goes on to note the references given above. Emmett McLoughlin's Introduction to Freemasonry (Waite, volume I, p. xxxii) says that "The ritual of the Blue Lodge, the foundation of all Masonic bodies, is structured around the story of the building of King Solomon's Temple and the murder by ruffians of Hiram Abif of Tyre, the chief architect and master of all the stonemasons in the construction of the Temple." He is such an important figure as to have his own standard abbreviation, H~A~B (Waite, volume I, p. xviii)
Béresniak, p. 28, after recounting the legend that "Nemrod" founded the masons, says "However, it was in Solomon's Temple that the murder of Hiram the architect took place. A mystical tale has arisen around the incident. It speaks of a Lost Word, the word of life, key to all secrets, which was substituted at that time, as much because it was lost, as because such a word could not be spoken." Sort of a masonic Philosopher's Stone -- except that there is no evidence whatsoever that Huram-abi was murdered. But masonic legend even has him "'reborn to a new life.' In a word, the Master-Builder arises as Christ" (Waite, volume I, p. 314).
See also Béresniak p. 102: "the murder of Hiram, the architect of Solomon's Temple, who was killed by three of his fellows, is the central legend of Freemasonry and is taught in all the rites. It is the legend of mastership. At the grade of Master, the Freemason has lived through the passion of Hiram. The legend, which does not figure in the Bible, is extremely ancient and is part of our shared cultural inheritance. It has been made accessible to everyone by Gérard de Nerval in his text Les nuits du Ramaan, one of the chapters in his Voyage en Orient. And Nerval was not a Freemason.
"e was son to a widow, a daughter of Dan" (Falkirk)/"He being a son of a widow of the daughters of Dan" (Hines)/"The son of a widow daughter of Dan" (Carrall)/"He is son to a widow and brother to Dan" (PoetsBox): See note on "Hiram Bereaf." Hiram/Huramabi was the son of a Danite woman in 2 Chronicles but not in 1 Kings.
"He exceeded them all at the casting of brass" (Falkirk; Hines, PoetsBox "...all in the...," from which Carrall omits "the"): Both 1 Kings 5:14 and 2 Ch 2:14 refer to Hiram's/Huramabi's skill in metalwork. Although the King James Bible says he worked in "brass," there was no word for "brass" at this time, and no standard recipe for making it since zinc had not been discovered (though there are a few ancient brass artifacts); the New Revised Standard Version, e.g., refers to "bronze" instead of brass.
"He cast two fine pillars, five cubits in height" (Falkirk)/"He cast two great pillars... They were full fifty cubits" (Hines)/"He built two fine pillars... Fully fifty five cubits" (Carral)/"He cast two fine pillars... They were full eighteen cubits as they stood upright" (Falkirk): The casting of the two pillars (named Jachin and Boaz) is told in 1 Kings 7:15-22, 2 Ch 3:15-17. In 1 Kings 7:15, they are 18 cubits high with capitals five cubits high; in 2 Ch 3:15 they are 35 cubits high with capitals five cubits high. Thus in Chronicles they are arguably 40 cubit high in total, which might be mis-heard as fifty, as in Hines and Galaxy. It is, however, most unlikely that anyone would make pillars 60 or 75 feet high at that time! Falkirk actually shortens the pillars; perhaps it is referring to the capitals. PoetsBox is unique in matching one of the Biblical values -- but it has the value from Kings, not that in Chronicles. Thus the strong evidence is that PoetsBox corrected the text toward Kings.
Note that the pillars were free-standing, not weight-bearing. Waite, pp 280-281, cites several Kabalistic mentions of them, which perhaps influenced the masons a little. On p. 94 he mentions that the two pillars "signif[ied] respectively two seekers after natural and supernatural philosophy." Béresniak, p. 44, says that "The pillars of Solomon's temple serve as signposts for Freemasons," then describes how pillars are set up in the lodge, with apprentices facing the north pillar and fellows the south; there are also Wardens for the pillars. They frankly sound more important to the Freemasons than to Solomon's Temple.
Waite, p. 280, explains how the Masonic doctrine came from the Kabalah: "Jachin and Boaz -- On this text the Kabalistic treatise, entited, GATES OF LIGHT, comments as follow: 'He who knows the mysteries of the two Pillars, which are Jachin and Boaz, shall understand after what manner the Neshamoth, or Minds, descend with the Ruachoth, or Spirits, and the Nephasoth, or Souls, through El-Chai and Adonai [titles of God, the former I would guess a distortion of El Shaddai, the Almighty, the latter meaning the LORD] by the influence of the said two Pillars.'"
"He set one on each side of King Solomon's porch" (Falkirk, PoetsBox)/"They stood one on each side of King Solomon's porch" (Hines)/"He built them on each side of Solomon's porch" (Carrall): 1 Kings 7:21 KJV: "And he set up the pillars in the porch of the temple"; 2 Ch 3:17 KJV: "And he reared up the pillars before the temple, one on the right hand, and the other on the left...." (Modern translations often use a different word, such as "vestibule," for "porch.")
"That Israel might see them as they went to church" (Falkirk, Carrall, PoetsBox): Since the public was barred from the inner Temple (even the priests were generally barred from the innermost parts), the exterior pillars were about as close as most of them got. Of course, the public of Israel didn't go to "church" -- or even to synagogue, at this stage; Israelite religion was built less about the actions of individuals than about the priestly cult.
"He cast two great pillars of an immense worth, They spread forth their wings for to cover the earth" (Hines): Neither Kings nor Chronicles mentions wings on the pillars; they had nets, chains, and perhaps lilies and pomegranates (so Kings). There were, however, two winged creatures in the Holy of Holies, which might explain the line in Galaxy:
"They built up two chariots of the emage whise (sic.) They stretch forth their wings for to carry the ark" (Galaxy): Whatever the Galaxy copyist thought he was writing, "chariots" is a misunderstanding of "cherubs" or similar, as in Falkirk:
"He cast two cherubims of fine image-work, They spread forth their wings to cover the ark" (Falkirk): clearly referring to the cherubim in the Holy of Holies, which are described in 1 Kings 6:23-28 and 2 Chronicles 3:10-13. 1 Kings 6:23-24 runs as follows in the KJV: "And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high. And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits." ("Cherubims" being a false plural; the singular is "cherub," the plural either "cherubs" or "cherubim.")
What the cherubim actually were is a very open question. InterpretersDict, volume I, p. 557, suggests a link to Akkadian karubu, a winged bull. (This hints to me at a connection with the molten calf of Exodus 32 and King Jeroboam's golden calves of 1 Kings 12:28). Mazor, p. 378, believes they "were probably sphinxlike, with the body of a lion or bull, the wings of an eagle, and the head of a man -- a well-known motif in Canaanite, Phoenician, and Syrian art of the Bronze and Iron ages. (Although later Israelites would vigorously deny it, there is strong evidence that Solomon took most of his ideas for the Temple from the other civilizations of Canaan.)
InterpretersDict, volume I, p. 131, mentions them guarding the Tree of Life (Gen. 3:24) and supporting the throne of God (Isa. 37:16). One carries God in 2 Sam. 22:11. Their images are associated with the Ark of the Covenant in Exodus 28:14, 16, so it makes sense they would be mounted over it in the Temple. But what were they? Ezekiel 1 describes them with four wings and four faces, but InterpretersDict, volume I, p. 131, warns that Ezekiel's vision "is idiosyncratic rather than typical." (Personally, I'd say Ezekiel was a nut case....) The Greek translation of Kings simply transliterated as χερουβειν/χερουβιμ, cheroubin/cheroubim, rather than attempting to translate; similarly the Latin Vulgate has cherub or cherubin. As long ago as the first century C.E., Josephus wrote that "no one can say or imagine what they looked like" (Josephus/Thackeray/Marcus, p. 611; Antiquities, Book VIII, section 73). We really have no good knowledge of what they were like in the Israeli cult.
"They were made by old Eliab and by Bezalel" (Falkirk)/"They were made by Ahalabus and great Basaleel" (Hines)/"They were made by old Ailebane or by Baserele" (PoetsBox): Not workers on the Temple but the builders of the Tabernacle in Exodus 31. In Exodus 31:2, the senior worker is "Bezalel son of Uri son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah" in the New Revised Standard Version, and 31:6 refers to "Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan"; the King James Bible has "Bezaleel" and "Aholiab" (the son of "Ahisamach"). Other translations used slightly different spellings, though I can't recall anything like most of the versions in the song. For the name "Oholiab" see also the note on "Hiram Bereaf" above. Presumably the original reference was to their work on the tabernacle.
The error "Eliab" in Falkirk was probably inspired by the other Eliabs in the Bible (of whom there were about six, the most important being David's older brother; InterpretersDict, volume 2, p. 86).
"And the molten sea thirty cubits about" (Hines)/"The molten sea was eight cubits about" (PoetsBox):1 Kings 7:23 KJV: "he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.." 2 Ch 4:2 is effectively identical -- although Kings later says it held 2000 baths, Chronicles 3000. (Don't worry about the fact that the Bible thinks π is equal to three; the Israelis were mathematical incompetents to the core; probably one or the other measurement was sloppy. The Greek translation, made by people who could do math, increases the circumference to 33 cubits.) The molten sea's actual shape is unknown; Josephus thought it was a hemisphere, but others assume a cylinder (InterpretersDict, volume 4, p. 253). As for what a "molten sea" is, it almost certainly means it was made from molten metal -- i.e. it was cast. (Myers-2Ch, p. 19, in fact translates "cast-metal sea"). Kings never says what it was used for; 2 Ch 4:6 says the priests used it to wash in. It is not impossible that its purpose changed over the years. It was destroyed and the metal taken away when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians took Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. (2 Kings 25:13-16).
The "eight cubits about" of PoetsBox is interesting. How one gets from thirty to eight via oral tradition I can't see -- but could it be a distortion for something like "eight cubits across"? This would be another way to solve the problem that a sea with diameter ten cubits would have a circumference of more than thirty cubits -- although eight cubits is too small.
"And the brazen oxen without any doubt" (Hines; PoetsBox omits "the"): 1 Kings 7:25 KJV: "It [the molten sea] stood upon twelve oxen," three each facing north, south, east, and west; again, 2 Ch 4:4 is effectively identical. The stands did not last as long as the sea itself; King Ahaz moved the sea onto a pediment of stone (2 Kings 16:17) because of the King of Assyria (2 Kings doesn't explain this in detail; presumably Ahaz used the bronze for tribute). It is likely that the twelve oxen corresponded to the twelve tribes of Israel (Myer-2Ch, p. 23). 2 Ch 4:3 seems to say in addition that there were reliefs of "likenesses" of oxen on the sea itself -- a detail not in 1 Kings, which may have suppressed it out of fears of idolatry (Myers-2Ch, p. 23).
"And the place where he cast them... It was in a valley they called Jordan's plain, Between Succoth and Zarthan" (Hines)/"And the place where he cast them is still to be found, In the plains of Jordan, into the clay ground" (PoetsBox): 1 Kings 7:46 KJV reads "In the plain of Jordan did the king cast them, in the clay ground between Succoth and Zarthan"; 2 Ch 4:17 is identical except that it has "Zeredathah" for "Zarethan." (Most modern translations read "Zeredah") There is no reason to prefer Kings over Chronicles or vice versa as to the name of the second place; it is not attested elsewhere under any of the names. (Succoth is known from elsewhere.) PoetsBox is obviously right in preserving the reference to the clay ground, which would be needed for casting.
"That on the fine building no hammer should sound" (Galaxy)/"That on that great temple no hammer should sound" (Hines)/"In this fine building no hammer did sound" (Carrall)/"That upon this fine building no hammer would sound" (PoetsBox): 1 Kings 6:7 KJV: "And the house, when it was in building [=being built], was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building."
"They put on the top of that beautiful pile There were three golden rods lest the birds should defile" (Hines)/"They were on to of this beautiful pile, Three beautiful rods lest the birds they should file (sic.)" (PoetsBox): There is no biblical basis for this statement about rods or their uses. Checking a King James Version concordance, the word "bird" does not occur anywhere in either 1 Kings or 2 Chronicles; neither does the word "rod"; I can't even find a use of the word "three" that might have inspired this. Perhaps it's another thing from the Kabbalah.
"It was all overlaid with the gold of Parvail" (Hines); cf. "Were all quite laid over with gold superfine" (PoetsBox): The interior of the Temple was indeed largely golden. But Hines's reading "gold of Parvail" is probably an error of memory (note that it doesn't rhyme with the previous line). 2 Ch 3:6 says that "the gold [that overlaid the Temple] was gold of Parvaim." Parvaim is unknown; this is the only use of the name. (That particular statement has no parallel in Kings.) We have only guesses as to where it might be located. Rabbinic tradition said that the gold was of a reddish hue (InterpretersDict, volume 3, p. 662), but this need not be taken seriously and is unlikely to have been known to a Gentile anyway.
"Queen of Sheba": Hines and Carrall have a single verse, PoetsBox the equivalent of two, and Falkirk and Galaxy two verses about the Queen's visit, which is told in 1 Kings 10:1-13, 2 Chronicles 9:1-12 (the two accounts are not verbatim, but close; clearly Chronicles took over the Kings account without addition or substantial deletion. The queen's hearing of Solomon's fame is told in 1 Kings 10:1=2 Ch. 9:1; her seeing his wealth and being so amazed by it that there was "no more spirit in her" is 1 Kings 10:5-6=2 Ch 3-4; her asking him hard questions is in 1 Kings 10:1=2 Ch 9:1, with Solomon answering in 1 Kings 10:3=2 Ch 9:2 (compare PoetsBox's "Till he told her all the secrets that were in his heart"). As for "she loved him well," nowhere does the Bible say that the Queen loved Solomon or vice versa, but 1 Kings 10:13=2 Ch 9:12 says that Solomon gave the queen "all her desire." Tradition has turned this into a story of him sleeping with her, or even marrying her, but there is no Biblical warrant for this; if the visit actually happened, it was probably a trade visit (InterpretersDict, volume IV, p. 311).
"She asked him hard questions according to art" (Falkirk)/"She proved him with questions according to wit" (PoetsBox): As above: 1 Kings 10:1, 2 Ch 9:1 describe the Queen of Sheba coming to Jerusalem to test Solomon with "hard questions," which he answered successfully.
"King Solomon, the grandson of Jess'" (Falkirk, Hines): Solomon was of course the son of David; David was the son of Jesse (a fact so well-known that it was often sufficient to refer to "the son of Jesse" without having to make David's name explicit). The first mention of the connection between David and Jesse, in the Christian order of books, is in Ruth 4:17-22; in the Jewish order, it's in 1 Samuel 16:10.
"When bright Phoebe...." (Hines)/"When Pompeus..." (PoetsBox): A thoroughly non-Biblical reference (there is a "Phoebe" in the New Testament, in Romans 16:1, but it's a Greek name, the feminine of Phoebus Apollo). "Pompeus" is, if anyone, Pompey the Great, who certainly didn't make the sun shine! Both readings are pretty clearly errors for "Phoebus" (Apollo).
"Jerusalem was a city with walls great and high, 'Twas a wonder to strangers as they did pass by" (Falkirk)/"Jerusalem is a city of walls great and high, It's a wonder to all strangers that do pass it by" (Hines)/"Jerusalem's city with walls great and high, A wonder to all strangers as they pass by" (PoetsBox): At the time of Solomon, an exaggeration. The oldest part of Jerusalem -- the "City of David," so-called because David captured it from the Jebusites -- was very strongly fortified (2 Samuel 5:6-10 describes how the residents of Jerusalem were sure he could not get in). But it was small -- the so-called "old city" is built on two hills between the wadis of the Kidron and of the sons of Hinnom, but the City of David occupied only the southern part of the eastern hill -- and probably was not impressive. David did build up the city (2 Samuel 5:11 says that Hiram of Tyre built a house for David, which is surely anachronistic because Hiram wasn't on the throne yet, but likely Tyrians did do the work). But it still probably wasn't very big. Solomon did more building -- 1 Kings 7:1-9 includes a catalog, including a much fancier palace than David had had -- but the temple was underway before he'd made much progress.
"It's the top of that vision of which we have seen, On the Isle of Patmos, by St. John the Divine" (Falkirk)/"I'm sure it's a type of that vision was seen On the Isle of Patmos by John the divine" (Hines)/"On the top of this vision there was to be seen, In the Island of Patmos by John the Divine" (PoetsBox): A reference to the Apocalypse in the New Testament. In Rev. 1:1 says that the revelation was to John, and John's name is mentioned several more times in the book. Which John is not identified, although tradition claims it was John the Apostle and Evangelist. It is possible that the book is by John the Apostle, but only if that John is not the Evangelist. Anyone who reads Greek can tell that the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John are by different writers. The Gospel uses very simple language but is grammatically correct; the Apocalypse is clearly the work of someone who thought in Aramaic and didn't really know Greek very well (InterpretersDict, volume 4, p. 59, says that the wording is so peculiar "as to have given rise to the suggestion that for the Apocalypse a 'grammar of ungrammar' must needs be written"). Many scholars in the early Church knew this; it's one reason why the Apocalypse was not universally accepted as canonical. But the Latin church largely forgot the fact.
The title "St. John the Divine" is complicated. John the Apostle was of course considered a saint, and since he was considered to be the same as the evangelist, obviously John the Evangelist was also a saint. But was the author of the Apocalypse a saint? The King James Bible titles the book "The Revelation of Saint John the Divine," but a Greek Christian might not recognize that title. The Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, called the book "αποκαλυψις ιωαννου του θεολογου," apocalypsis Ioannou tou theologou, "apocalypse/revelation of John the theologian." This is the most common title in the manuscripts. Of the dozen manuscripts whose book titles are listed on p. 735 of NA28, *none* include the word "saint" (αγιου) except one (manuscript 2050) that piles on several other titles as well. And the two oldest manuscripts with a title (A and the corrector of א -- both fifth century) call it just the "apocalypse/revelation of/to John." The King James title probably got a boost from the Latin Vulgate translation, late manuscripts of which call the book "Apocalysis Beati Ioannis Apostolos" -- "apocalypse/revelation of (the) holy/saint John the Apostle." But the earliest Vulgate manuscripts omit "beati," "holy/saint." Thus there is no actual warrant for calling the author of the Apocalypse anything other than "John" -- but the author of this song would have used the title from the King James Version.
Whoever he was, Rev. 1:9 says that John had his vision on the island of Patmos, where he was in exile (presumably during the persecution of Domitian in the 90s C.E.). The vision mentioned here is no doubt a reference to the New Jerusalem, which came down from heaven in Rev. 21:2, 10 (and that city is explicitly said to have high walls in 21:12). I doubt what John saw was actually a vision that resembled the earthly Jerusalem, though; Rev. 21:16 says that the New Jerusalem was "foursquare" (τετραγωνος), which is the Greek word for square ("foursquare" is a hypertranslation), and the real Jerusalem, which was thoroughly unplanned, was definitely not square!
"When our noble Free Masons in a Lodge they all join, Each brother is clothed with jewels most fine" (Falkirk)/"When our brethren do meet in a lodge for to shine, Each man he is clothed in a garment so fine" (Hines): The references to fine clothes and a master on a chair are a good fit for John's vision; God is on his throne (Rev. 20:11) and there are several references in the book to how the residents of heaven are clothed. And the Masons had special garments (aprons and gloves), and "thrones," and so forth. So the link between the vision and the master of a masonic lodge are well-calculated
"compass and square" (Hines, PoetsBox): Not a biblical reference; although both the words "compass" and "square" are used in the King James Bible (indeed, the doors to the Temple are said to be square in 1 Kings 7:5), the references in the Bible are not to measurement tools. And the dozens of uses of "compass" in the KJV are almost always to encompassing, surrounding, encircling; the NRSV changes all of them except one, in Isa. 44:13, which is apparently a reference to the device for drawing circles. So the reference here is rather to the compass and square angle of the primary Masonic logo. "Square and compass -- The universal emblematic devide of Craft Masonry and chief among the working tools" (Waite, volume I, p. xxiii). The masons regard the tools as going back to the Greeks -- which isn't quite right; the Greeks did geometry with compass and straight edge, not compass and square. But since compass and straight edge can be used to generate a right angle, the masons were just taking a minor shortcut.
"The great architect of honour you see He gave this a pattern in wrighting to me" (Carrall): A brilliant line but a little confusing; see the note on "He gave all the pattern in writing to me" above.
As a footnote, the Masonic legends aren't the only instance of the Temple being invoked for other lessons; Béresniak, p. 26, points out that no less a figure than John Bunyan, of Pilgrim's Progress fame, wrote a short book, Solomon's Temple Spiritualized, in 1760.
Note incidentally that, as mentioned above, Solomon's Temple was destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E.; "Zerubabbel's" second Temple occupied the same spot but was a different building, and Herod the Great rebuilt the whole site in the late first century B.C.E. Thus even such Temple relics as now can be seen in Jerusalem are not part of Solomon's temple. - RBW
BibliographyLast updated in version 6.5
File: LQ39

Go to the Ballad Search form
Go to the Ballad Index Song List

Go to the Ballad Index Instructions
Go to the Ballad Index Bibliography or Discography

The Ballad Index Copyright 2024 by Robert B. Waltz and David G. Engle.