Charles you wrote;
"Within the royal family this practice partly compenstated for habitual incest, because the firstborn was usually redeemed rather than literally sacrificed to the gods. However, Biblical accounts indicate that the firstborn was also generally recognized as the legal heir of the girl's future husband. There is a dynastic element to this custom that I hadn't fully recognized before. Specifically, the Great King could use this custom to advantage by imposing his right as "Godfather" to produce the firstborn child of high-ranking women. When these women were married, the firstborn sons would be established as heirs and thereby the male lineage of the Great King was grafted onto that of rival royal males and other high-ranking men."
It is almost inescapable that we also see a process almost exactly like you describe above during the Middle Ages. It has been called "first rights", or something similar. In essence, it was the right of the "Lord" of a fiefdom, which could be a Duke, or some other royal rank, etc., that had almost absolute power over his possessions. And the possessions included all of the people who lived in his fiefdom! The main point is that this royal personage had the "right" to "bed" or "sleep" (copulate) with a young woman engaged to be married.
This, of course, had both benefits and disadvantages to the "Lord." Thus if a child was conceived via this union then the "Lord" was or could have been considered as the father, thus giving the child some rights to the fiefdom. Whether such a system bred loyalty or the desire to overthrow the father is another matter.
But, in the case discussed here "Follow the Firstborn", we can understand that any sort of revolution or overthow might began with the murder of the firstborn children as a method of eliminating any other claimants to the throne or titles!
Certainly is it possible that both Jesus and Moses had something in common with each other if all of the words written about their similarities are in anyway correct.
Thus, considering that Herod also had "first rights" then it is totally conceivable that fearing a revolt, that he might order the killing of all young males that might be his children!
In the same vein, it would not be unusual for Moses, who had the strongest claim to the throne, might not order or plan a revolution by also killing all of the other first born of the "Lord!"
It is funny that this right called I think "primogeniture", should make its way into the Dark and Middle Ages in Europe. But, with all of the connections you have made, maybe it is not strange?
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.