In the history of the kings, the first notice of burial closes the reference to patriarchal funeral customs. When Samuel was dead, it is related that all the Israelites were gathered together, and lamented hint, and buried him in his house at Ramah ' (I Sam. xxv. 1). Thus Samuel was honoured like Moses with a national mourning. The burial in the house occurs again in the case of Joab, who was buried in his own house in the wilderness' (I Kings ii. 34), and the cases of Joshua and Eleazar may be compared, but they are not said to have been buried in their houses. When a house is spoken of, a garden in its court may be meant as the actual place, such as we may suppose was the garden in which Manasseh was buried. The modern Arabs occasionally bury in courts, and even rooms of houses ; thus Mohammad's tomb was in a room of his house.
The account of the funeral rites of the first king of Israel suggests a curious inquiry. When the men of Jabesh-gilead had rescued the bodies of Saul and his three sons from the wall of Beth-shan, they brought them to Jabesh, and burnt them there. And they took their bones, and buried [them] under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days' (I Sam. xxxi. 11-13). David afterwards removed the bones of Saul and Jonathan, and apparently of the others also, and buried them in the sepulchre of Kish,' Saul's father (2 Sam. xxi. 12.14). Here we meet with the practice of burning the dead, which is very remarkable in the case of Shemites. Another mention of it occurs in Amos, where the prophet speaks of burning a body, and bringing the bones out of the house (vi. 7-10). The reading ' burning for' seems here inadmissible. This pas sage refers to the state of a besieged city, and [turning may have been adopted in such a case without being a usual custom. These exceptional instances shew, however, that the Jews had no superstitious reverence for the bodies of the dead, as had the Egyptians.
Absalom was buried where he was slain. And they took Absalom, and cast him into a great pit in the wood, and laid a very great heap of stones upon him. ... Now Absalom in his lifetime hail taken and reared up for himself a pillar, which [is] in the king's dale ; for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance ; and he called the pillar after his own name ; and it is called unto this day Absa lom's monument' (2 Sam. xviii. 17,18). This mark ing the place of burial by raising a great heap of stones seems to have been usual when it was in tended to shew abhorrence of the person buried ; it was done at the burial of Achan (Josh. vii. 26), and that of the king of Ai, in the latter case by Joshua's command (viii. 29). The monument raised by Absalom has been connected with the structure called his tomb at Jerusalem, but, as we shall shew, the latter is of a far later period.
The Hebrew kings are not known to have had at first a fixed royal burying-place. Of David we only know that he was buried in the city of David' (I Kings ii. to), and that in St. Peter's time his sepulchre was known at Jerusalem (Acts ii. 29). Whether the Arab building now held to be the tomb of David have a right to its name, cannot be con jectured in the absence of any clear evidence. The identity of most of the traditional sites in Palestine is, however, extremely doubtful. There is some notice of the burial of every king of David's house to whom it was possible to pay this respect. Of several, it is only related either that they were buried in the city of David or were there buried with their fathers. The latter ex pression does not appear to mean that they were entombed in the royal sepulchres, as we read in Kings that Jehoram was buried with his fathers (2 Kings viii. 24), and, in a fuller account, that he was excluded from the kings' tombs, although buried in the city of David : so, too, of Uzziab, whose burial with his fathers, and entombment apart, occasioned by his leprosy, are mentioned in the same passage (2 Chron. xxvi, 23, comp. 2 Kings xv. 7). The meaning may therefore be, either that, as kings slept with their fathers, so they were buried with them, or else that they were buried in the region of the royal sepulchres. Those kings of whom it is only said that they were buried in the city of David, are Solomon (I Kings xi. 43 ; 2 Chron. ix. 31) ; Abijah (I Kings xv. 8 ; 2 Chron. xiv. ; Amaziah, though killed at Lachish by conspirators (2 Kings xiv. 19, 20 ; comp. 2 Chron. xxv. 27, 28) ; and Jotham (2 Kings xv. 38, 2 Chron. xxvii. 9). Those said to have been buried with their fathers in the city of David are Rehoboam (I Kings xiv. 31 ; comp. 2 Chron. xii. 16), and Iehoshaphat (1 Kings xxii. 50 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 1). Of the others whose burial is noticed, we have fuller particulars, and it is to be remarked that much importance is assigned from the time of Asa downwards to the honour paid to the king ap parently by the people. Asa's tomb and burial
are thus spoken of, And they buried him in his own sepulchres, which he had Jigged for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed [or, rather, coffin 1: as in Is. lvii. 2, not bier,' as rendered by Gesenius], which he had filled with perfumes and spices compounded by the apothe cary's art ; and they made for him an exceeding great burning' (2 Chron. xvi. 14). Asa seems to have made some new excavated tomb, having several galleries or chambers, near the other royal sepulchre or sepulchres, and to have been there buried with great state. Two passages may be here compared. Jeremiah prophesies to Zedekiah, ' with the burn ings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before thee, so shall they burn for thee ; and they shall lament thee, [saying,] All lord ! ' (xxxiv. 5) ; and St. John, describing the burying of our Saviour, whose body was wound in linen clothes with spices, adds, ' as the manner of the Jews is to bury' (xix. 39, 40), though this and the other Gospel-narratives do not indicate any burning of spices. It has been supposed that Asa's burial resembled that of the Roman emperors, that his body in a bier was placed upon a pyre and burnt with spices. The construction does not admit of this explanation, for it is said of Asa as well as of other kings, that burning was made, or to be made for them, not that they were burnt ; the word rendered in the A. V. ' bed' cannot be translated ' bier,' but must signify ' coffin,' as is shewn by the passage in Isaiah before referred to ; and among the notices of actual burial the practice of burning is not mentioned, save in the hurried burial of Saul, and the exceptional case of a besieged city, foretold by Amos. The bones' of the dead, as Elisha's (2 Kings xiii. 21), are spoken of, not the ashes ; and the former term is even applied to the embalmed body of Joseph (Exod. xiii. 19, comp. Gen. 1. 25, 26). The mode of burial seems therefore to have been essentially the same as that of the New Testament age. Jehoram, having reigned wickedly and unhappily, had no fune ral honours, and was not buried in the royal tombs. ' And his people made no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers." He reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit, they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings' (2 Chron. xxi. 19, 20). Joash, slain in a conspiracy, was buried in the city of David, but they buried him not in the sepulchres of the kings' (xxiv. 25), evidently on account of his impiety ; whereas, of the good priest Jehoiada, we read that ' they buried him in the city of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house' (xxiv. 16). Ahaziah, though slain in the kingdom of Samaria, and perhaps first buried there (comp. 2 Chron. xxii. 9), was brought to Jeru salem and buried in his sepulchre with his fathers in the city of David ' (2 Kings ix. 28, where a special tomb is indicated). Uzziah, as a leper, was excluded from the royal burying-places. So Uzziah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers, in the field of the burial which [belonged] to the kings ; for they said, He [is] a leper' (2 Chron. xxvi. 23 ; comp. 2 Kings xv. 7). Ahaz, being a wicked king, was excluded in like manner. ' They buried him in the city, in Jerusa lem ; but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel' (2 Chron. xxviii. 27 ; comp. 2 Kings xvi. 20). But Hezekiali's case was far dif ferent ; they buried him in the mount of the sepulchres of the sons of David ; and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honour at his death' (2 Chron. xxxii. 33). Manasseh's partly wicked, and, as it seems, wholly calamitous reign, ensured him a different burial. ' And Manasseh slept with his fathers, and was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza' (2 Kings xxi. IS). This garden was, it seems, in a court, for it is also said, they buried him in his own house' (2 Chron. xxxiii. 20). His wicked successor Amon was buried with his father, but apparently in another tomb, or perhaps pit. ' And he was buried in his sepulchre in the garden of Uzza' (2 Kings xxi. 26). Josiah appears to have been buried with them (xxiii. 30; 2 Chron. xxxv. 24), though in a separate tomb or place, perhaps on account of the calamitous state of the kingdom at his death, which may have rendered haste neces sary. Of his successors, none can have been buried at Jerusalem ; Jehoiakim alone may have died on the throne, and of him Jeremiah prophesied, ' He shall be•buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem' (xxii. 19 ; comp. xxxvi. 30).