It is utterly improbable that the Jews derived this custom from the Romans, as is constantly alleged. They certainly knew it as existing among the Per- sians long before it had been adopted by the Romans
Family eating-couch. From Pompeii.
themselves (Esth. i, G ; vii, 8) ; and the presumption is that they adopted it while subject to that people. The Greeks also had the usage (from the Persians) be- fore the Romans ; and with the Greeks of Syria the Jews had very much intercourse. Besides, the Ro- mans adopted the custom from the Carthaginians (Val. Max. xii, 1, 2; Liv. xxviii, 28); and that they had it, implies that it previously existed in Phoenicia, in the neighborhood of the .Tews. It is also unlikely that, in so short a time, it should have become usual and even (as the Talmud asserts, see Otho, Lex. Until). p. 447) obligatory to cat the Passover in that pos- ture of indulgent repose, and in no other (Gizring, Accuhit. a*! Patch. Vit. 1735). The literature of this subject has been brought together by Stuckius {Antiq.
Concivalium, ii, 34) ; and the works on Pompeii and Herculaneum (see Cockburn's Pompeii Illustrated, ii, 5) supply the more recent information. (See Smith's Diet, of Class. Antiq. s. v. Ccena, Deipnon, Triclin- ium.)— Kitto, s. v. See Eating.
Accursed (in general designated by some form of ??p, kalal' , Gr. Kcirapdopai, to " curse"), a term used in two senses. See Oath.
(1.) Anathema (D"?n, che'rem, avdBi^a), a vow (Num. xxi, 2), by which persons or things were devo- ted to Jehovah, whose property they became irrevoca- bly and never to be redeemed (sacer, sacrum esto Je- hovse; comp. Cassar, Bell. Gall, vi, 17; Tacit. Annul. xiii, 57; Lev. iii, 55; Diod. Sic. xi, 3; see Mayer, De Nomin. Piacularibus. in Ugolini Thesaur. xxiii). Per- sons thus offered were doomed to death (Lev. xxvii, 29 ; see Judg. xi, 31 sq. ; 1 Sam. xiv, 44). Cattle, land, and other property were appropriated for the use of the temple, i. e. of the caste of the priests (Lev. xxvii, 28 ; Num. xviii, 14 ; Ezek. xxiv, 20). Originally such vows were spontaneous on the part of the Israelites (see Num. xxi, 2; 1 Sam. xiv, 24 [in this latter case, all the individual warriors of an army were bound by the vow made by the leader]) ; but occasionally the anath- ema, losing its votive character, assumed that of a theocratic punishment (see Ezra x, 8), in consequence of the prescriptions of the law, as, for example, in the case of the anathema (capital sentence) pronounced against an idolatrous Israelite (Exod. xxii, 20), or against a whole idolatrous city (Dent, xiii, 10 sq.), which was ordered to be destroyed utterly by fire with all that was therein, and the inhabitants and all their cattle to be put to the sword (see Judg. xx, 48; xxi, 10, 19 ; comp. Appian. Pun. 133 ; Mithrid. 45 ; Liv. x, 29 ; see Miller, Devotiones veterum in bellis, Lips. 1730). Essentially identical with this was the anathema against the Canaanitish cities, to be execu- ted by the Israelites when they should enter the land (Deut. ii, 34 sq. ; iii, 6 ; Josh." vi, 17 sqq. ; x, 28, 35, 37, 40; xi, 11), [in consequence of a vow (Num. xxi, 2 sq.), or upon the express command of Jehovah (Deut. vii, 2; xx, 16 sq. ; see 1 Sam. xv, 3)], in order that they should be secured against all manner of tempta- tion to enter into nearer relations with the idolatrous natives (Deut. xx, 18 ; see Exod. xxiii, 32 sq.). Such city, therefore, was burned with all things therein, and the inhabitants and their cattle were killed, while all metals and metallic utensils were delivered up to the sanctuary (Josh, vi, 21, 24). At times (when the wants of the army made it desirable ?) the cattle was spared, and, like other spoils, divided among the war- riors (Josh, viii, 2G sq. ; Dent, ii, 34 sq. ; iii, 6 sq.). Finally, in some cities merely the living things were destroyed (Josh, x, 28, 30, 32, 37, S9, 40), but the cities themselves were spared. Those who were guilt}' of any sort of violation of the laws of the anathema were put to death (Josh, vii, 11 sq. ; see vi, 18; Deut. xiii, 17; Caesar, Bell. Gall, vi, 17). In the anathema pro- nounced by a zealous enforcer of the law (Ezra x, 8) against the property of such Jews as had married for- eign wives and refused to divorce them, the banish- ment of such persons themselves was comprehended. It does not appear, however, whether their property was destroyed or (as H. Michaelis understood) given to the priests : the latter case would be inconsistent with a strict interpretation of Deut. xiii, 1G. See Anath- ema.— We translate from Winer, s.v. Bann.
(2.) Different from this is the Ban of the later Jews, mentioned in the Now Testament as a sort of ecclesi- astical punishment (for hei-esy), Luke vi, 22 (dtpopi- Z,HV)\ John ix, 22; xii, 42; xvi, 2 (aTroovvdywyuv yiveoSai or ttoihi'), viz., the exclusion of a Jew from the congregation, and all familiar intercourse with oth- ers, by a resolution. "Excommunicated" (JTI^^, me- nudeh') and " excommunication'' C^S, n'ddu'y) are