Mormonism Explained
Hiram Abiff: The Bible, the Masonic Legend, and the Temple
The name “Hiram Abiff” never appears in the Bible. But a real Hiram does. How a two-verse biblical craftsman became Freemasonry’s central legend — and what that legend meant to Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo Saints.
The Short Answer
Was Hiram Abiff a real person?
Not by that name. A craftsman named Hiram is a real biblical figure — a bronze-worker from Tyre whom King Solomon brought to Jerusalem to craft the Temple’s furnishings (1 Kings 7:13-14). But “Hiram Abiff,” his role as Solomon’s murdered chief architect, and the drama built around his death are Masonic inventions, first documented in the early 1700s — nearly three thousand years after Solomon, and nowhere in scripture.
Key Takeaways
- The biblical Hiram is real, but brief. A bronze-worker from Tyre named in 1 Kings 7:13-14 and 2 Chronicles 2:13-14 — two passages, and nothing about his death.
- “Hiram Abiff” is a Masonic name. “Abiff” comes from a Hebrew honorific (“my father”) that early Masonic writers turned into a surname.
- The murder legend is an 18th-century composition. First documented in print in 1730, then fixed in Freemasonry’s official history by 1738 — not handed down from antiquity.
- Freemasonry’s own claimed lineage is legend, not history. Organized Freemasonry dates to 1717; its descent from Solomon’s Temple is founding myth by the fraternity’s own historians’ account.
- Joseph Smith encountered this legend directly. He became a Mason in March 1842 and introduced the temple endowment seven weeks later — and the Nauvoo Saints read the resemblance as Masonry preserving a corrupted echo of an ancient ordinance, not the other way around.
Two Verses, One Name
The Hiram of the Bible
The Hebrew scriptures mention two different men named Hiram in connection with Solomon’s Temple, and the distinction matters. The first is Hiram, King of Tyre — the Phoenician monarch who supplied Solomon with cedar, gold, and skilled labor (1 Kings 5). The second is the craftsman this piece concerns: a metalworker, also from Tyre, described in 1 Kings 7:13-14.
“And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. He was a widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.”
1 Kings 7:13-14, KJV
The parallel account in 2 Chronicles 2:13-14 adds detail. There, King Hiram of Tyre writes to Solomon and introduces the craftsman with a Hebrew phrase — Huram-abi — describing a man “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.” Chronicles gives his mother’s lineage as the daughters of Dan rather than Naphtali — one of several small differences between the two accounts that scholars attribute to the books’ separate composition histories. A third reference, 2 Chronicles 4:16, credits “Huram his father” with the pots, shovels, and fleshhooks made for the house of the Lord.
That is the entire biblical record. The craftsman Hiram appears, works brass and gold, casts the Temple’s two great pillars — Jachin and Boaz(1 Kings 7:21), names every Freemason knows — and exits the narrative. Scripture records nothing about his death. No murder, no martyrdom, no burial. The Bible’s Hiram is a craftsman of extraordinary skill, divinely gifted “with wisdom, and understanding” — language the text also uses of Bezaleel, the craftsman of Moses’s Tabernacle (Exodus 31:1-5), whom God “filled with the spirit of God” for sacred work. In the biblical pattern, temple craftsmanship is itself a form of inspiration.
A Title Became a Name
Where the Name “Abiff” Comes From
The suffix “Abiff” derives from the Hebrew abi or abiv— “my father” or “his father” — the honorific attached to the craftsman’s name in Chronicles (Huram-abi, roughly “Huram my master” or “Huram my father,” a title of respect for a master artisan). When later translators rendered the phrase as a proper name, and when early Masonic writers — most influentially James Anderson in his Constitutions of the Free-Masons (1723, revised 1738) — adopted “Hiram Abif” as the craftsman’s full name, the compound stuck. What began as a Hebrew honorific became the proper name of Freemasonry’s central figure.
The Third Degree
The Masonic Legend of Hiram Abiff
In the ritual of the third degree — the Master Mason degree, the culminating ceremony of Craft Freemasonry — Hiram Abiff is far more than a bronze-worker. He is the chief architect of Solomon’s Temple, one of three Grand Masters alongside King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre, and the sole custodian of the secrets of a Master Mason.
The legend, as preserved in Masonic ritual texts and exposures dating to the early eighteenth century, runs as follows. As the Temple neared completion, three fellowcraft masons — the “ruffians,” named Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelumin most American workings — demanded that Hiram reveal the Master’s secrets, including the Master’s Word, before the Temple was finished. Hiram refused three times at three gates of the Temple, and at the third refusal was struck dead. His murderers buried him hastily, marking the grave with a sprig of acacia. When Solomon’s search parties recovered the body, the Master’s Word was declared lost, and a substitute was adopted — which Masonic ritual preserves to this day. The candidate in the third degree ritually reenacts Hiram’s fidelity, death, and raising.
The earliest documented appearance of this narrative in print is Samuel Prichard’s exposure Masonry Dissected (1730). Anderson’s 1738 Constitutionsincorporated Hiram Abiff into Freemasonry’s official legendary history. Masonic educational literature is generally candid that the murder narrative is allegory, not biblical history — a ritual drama teaching fidelity unto death, the immortality of the soul, and the hope of resurrection.
It is worth pausing on what the legend is for. Freemasonry’s own interpreters describe the Hiramic drama as the Craft’s meditation on integrity and mortality: a man who valued his covenant more than his life. Whatever one concludes about Freemasonry’s historical claims, the moral architecture of the legend explains why the fraternity built its most solemn ceremony around a craftsman rather than a king.
Legend vs. the Documentary Record
What Masonic Tradition Claims — and What Historians Document
Masonic tradition traces the Craft’s descent to Solomon’s Temple itself. Anderson’s Constitutionsconstructs a legendary genealogy running from Adam through Noah, Moses, and Solomon to the medieval cathedral builders and finally to the London lodges of Anderson’s own day. In this traditional account, the ceremonies of Freemasonry preserve — in however altered a form — knowledge first exercised in the building of the Temple: sacred geometry, degrees of advancement, and the drama of Hiram’s fidelity.
Documentary history tells a shorter story. Freemasonry as an organized institution emerges from the medieval stonemasons’ guilds of Britain — operative masons with trade secrets, apprenticeship degrees, and lodge structures — which in the seventeenth century began admitting “speculative” gentlemen members, and which organized formally with the founding of the first Grand Lodge in London in 1717. The Hiramic ritual is first documented in the 1720s-1730s. Serious Masonic historians — including those writing within the fraternity — treat the Solomonic descent as foundational myth in the technical sense: a story that carries the institution’s meaning, not its documented lineage.
This distinction — between what a tradition claims about its origins and what history documents — matters enormously for the Latter-day Saint side of this story, because the early Saints in Nauvoo confronted exactly this question, and their answer is one of the more interesting interpretive moves in Restoration history.
The Nauvoo Encounter
Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, and Freemasonry’s Echo of the Temple
Freemasonry was woven into the world of early Mormonism. Several early Church leaders, including Hyrum Smith and Heber C. Kimball, belonged to Masonic lodges years before Nauvoo. In March 1842, Joseph Smith was initiated into the newly organized Nauvoo Lodge — and less than two months later, on May 4, 1842, he introduced the temple endowment to nine associates, all of them Masons. The chronology is undisputed; the Church’s own Gospel Topics essay on Masonry states it plainly.
Critics have long argued the endowment simply borrowed Masonic ritual. The similarities are real and acknowledged on all sides: ritual progression, covenants marked by signs and tokens, symbolic clothing, dramatic reenactment. But the differences are at least as instructive. The endowment centers on washings, anointings, and the Creation and Fall of Adam and Eve — none of which appear in the Craft Masonry Joseph Smith knew — while Masonry’s characteristic apparatus (the rough ashlar, the trestle board, the letter G) is absent from the temple. And where Freemasonry in Joseph Smith’s day excluded women entirely, Joseph extended the endowment to women from 1843 onward — a structural difference with no Masonic parallel.
How did the first generation of Saints themselves understand the resemblance? The most direct surviving statement comes through Heber C. Kimball, a Mason of long standing. Recalling his own Masonic membership, Kimball described a “similarity of priesthood in masonry” that he understood as taken from priesthood but degenerated over time — and Joseph Fielding, in a similar vein, called Masonry “a Stepping Stone or Preparation for something else.” Neither claimed Masonry preserved an intact ancient liturgy — only scattered vestiges of one.
Notice what this early interpretation does with the Hiramic legend specifically. If Masonry’s ceremonies descend, however imperfectly, from rites connected with Solomon’s Temple — as Masonic tradition itself claims — then the biblical Hiram, “filled with wisdom, and understanding” for sacred work, stands near the head of both streams. The Saints in Nauvoo did not have to invent a connection between their temple and Solomon’s; the Masonic tradition they encountered already asserted one. The Church’s current position is more restrained than the Nauvoo-era interpretation, and its Gospel Topics essay states its conclusion carefully: “the endowment did not simply imitate the rituals of Freemasonry. Rather, Joseph’s encounter with Masonry evidently served as a catalyst for revelation.” For the fuller documented comparison of the two ceremonies — what they share, where they diverge, and the four timelines behind the seven-week gap — see our companion piece, The Mormon Temple and the Freemasons, Explained.
The Bottom Line
Two Traditions, One Temple
Strip away the polemics on both sides and the structure of the story is striking. Two traditions — one a fraternity, one a restoration movement — each look back to the same building: the Temple that Solomon built and Hiram adorned. Freemasonry looks back through legend, staging the death of a craftsman who would not betray his trust. Latter-day Saints look back through the claim of restored ordinances, in temples whose baptismal fonts rest on twelve oxen after the pattern of Hiram’s molten sea (1 Kings 7:23-25). Both traditions insist, in their different registers, that what happened in Solomon’s Temple mattered permanently — that sacred knowledge, sacred covenants, and sacred space did not end when Babylon burned the building in 586 BC.
Whether Freemasonry’s rites actually descend from Solomon’s era is a question the documentary record answers against the legend. Whether Joseph Smith’s endowment restores what Solomon’s Temple — and Eden before it — once held is a question the documentary record cannot answer at all; it is a matter of revelation and faith. What the record does show is a bronze-worker from Tyre whom the Bible describes as divinely gifted for temple work; a fraternity that made his fidelity its deepest lesson; and a prophet in Illinois who, encountering that fraternity’s echo of the ancient Temple, taught his people that the original was about to be restored.
Quick Reference