D
Dull, Millstone – Dull, Millstone
Page 51 of 259
Dull, Millstone
1 . Three methods of preparing flour were in use in Palestine in Bible times, associated with the mortar and pestle (see Mohtah and Pestle), the rubbing-stone, and the quern or handmill. The most primitive apparatus was the rubbing-stone or corn-rubber, which consisted really of two stones. The one on which the corn was ground was a substantial slab, often 2i feet long, and about a foot wide, slightly concave and curving upwards, like a saddle, at both ends (illust. in Macalister, Bible Sidelights, etc., fig. 28). The other, the "rubbing-stone proper, was a narrow stone from 12 to 18 inches long, pointed at both ends and also slightly curved, one side being plain and the other convex. In manipulating the rubber, the woman grasped it by both ends and ground the grains of wheat or barley with the convex side. Cf. Macalister’s description in PBFSt, 1903, p. 118, with Schumacher’s photograph reproduced by Benzinger, Heb. Arch.’ (1907) 63, and the Egyptian statuette in Erman’s Ancient Egypt, 190. Vincent in his CaruMn d’apr&s I’exploration rlcente (405, fig. 282) shows a corn-rubber of flint from the palaeolithic age!
2. The more familiar apparatus for the same purpose was the handmill or quern. As in so many instances(see, e.g., Lamp), the recent excavations enable us to trace two distinct stages in the evolution of the Palestinian handmill. The Gezer specimens described in detail in PBFSt, 1903, 119, belong to the earlier type, which is distinguished from the later form by the absence of a handle for rotating the upper stone. The quern-stones ‘are always small, rarely being as much as a foot across.’ The lower stone, the ‘nether millstone’ of , was always more massive than the ‘upper millstone’ (). and was apparently fitted with ‘a narrow spindle’ sunk into the stone. The upper stone was pierced right through, and by this hole the mill was fed. According to Mr. Macalister, ‘the upper stone was grasped with both hands (the fingers clasping the edge, the thumbs being between the spindle and the stone), and worked through about one-third of a rotation, backward and forward.’ For varieties of this type, see PEPSt, 1903, p. 119 f.
In the later and more effective type of handmill, which was that in use in NT times, the stones were larger, although the lower stone was still considerably wider than the upper (.Baba bathra, ii. 1). As in the querns of the present day, the latter was fitted with a wooden handle (yad in the Mishna) in the shape of an upright peg inserted near the outer edge. The mill was fed, as before, through a funnel-shaped cavity pierced through the upper stone, which was rotated by the handle through a complete circle. Sometimes, as appears from . two women worked the mill, seated opposite each other, and each turning the upper stone through half a revolution, as may still be seen in the East.
By the first century of our era a larger and different form of mill had been introduced, apparently, to judge by the names of the various parts in the Mishna (see art. ‘Mill’ in EBi iii. 3093), under Grsco-Roman influence. In the larger specimens of this type, the upper millstone, in the shape of two hollow cones, as described in detail, loc. dt., was turned by an ass, and is the ‘great millstone’ of EV (lit. as EVm ‘a millstone turned by an ass’).
3. The work of the mill belonged at all times to the special province of the women of the household (Mt ). In large establishments, it fell to the slaves, male () and female (). particularly the latter, hence the figure for the slavery of captivity in .
The finer varieties of meal, the ‘fine fiour’ of OT, were got by repeated grinding, or by sifting with sieves, or by a combination of both processes.
How indispensable the handmill was considered for the daily life of the family may be seen from the provision of the Deuterouomic legislation forbidding the creditor to take in pledge the household mill (so rightly RV), or even the upper millstone, ‘for he taketh a man’s life to pledge’ (). A. R. S. Kennedy.
MILLENNID])!. — A period of a thousand years, during which, according to , the Dragon (i.e. the devil) is to be confined in the abyss, while the martyrs, having been raised from the dead, are to reign with Christ. The period begins with this first resurrection, and at its end, Satan, prior to his destruction, is to be released for a time to deceive the nations.
This reference in Revelation is unique in the NT. The Millennium was, however, present in the Jewish apocalyptic literature. In Slavonic Enoch (chs. 32 and 33), time is described as a week of seven days, each of one thousand years in length. These six days (i.e. 6000 years) are said to have elapsed from the time of the Creation to the Judgment. Then will come a ‘sabbath of rest’ of a thousand years, and then an eighth day which shall be timeless. A similar expectation is to be found in the Talmud (Sank. 97a), and it is not Impossible that this conception can be traced back to Babylonia or Persia.
In the history of the Christian Church the doctrine of the Millennium has played a considerable r61e, but Chiliasm (wh. see) has been opposed by most of the great theologians from Augustine down. In the Epistle of Barnabas(ch. IS) we have a view very similar to that of the Slavonic Enoch, while Justin Martyr (Dial. 80) regards a chiliastic view of the future as an essential part of Christian faith, although he knows that it is not held by all the orthodox. At the present time, in addition to the Second Adventists, millennial views are held strongly by a number of earnest Christians commonly called pre-imllenarlans because of their belief that Christ will return before the period of a thousand years begins and establish an earthly reign. In accordance with this theory (see Chiliasm, PABonaiA), the resurrection is to be limited not to martjnrs but to all Christians. Such an interpretation obviously does violence to the connexion between the nineteenth and twentieth chapters of Revelation, and gives undue prominence to an expectation which was held by neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor, in fact, by any writer of the NT except the author of Revelation. At the same time, there is little question that this pre-millennlal view is germane to the literaUstic Messianic hope which controlled the NT Church, and is not beyond a possible harmonization with The fundamental difficulty in erecting it into a doctrine of essential Cliristiamty is that it presupposes conditions and expectations, carried over from Judaism, wliicii the course of history has shown to be without foundation. Shailer Mathews. BULLET (probably Panicum mUiaceum or perhaps Andropogon sorghum) is mentioned in Ezl£ (only) as an ingredient in bread. See Food, § 2.