Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   


QUAKER BIRTH DATES

The Three Major Sources for births of Andrew Job, Jr's Children

Special Thanks to Jerry Richmond for looking these records up for us.

                       Chester MM              New Garden MM	      Hinshaw NG Notebook

[1]  Benjamin,      b. 13  8M 1693 (Oct)	    
[2]  Jacob,         b. 26  5M 1694 (Jul)      b.  3  5M 1694   (Jul)      b.  3  5M 1694
[3]  Thomas,        b. 22  9M 1695 (Nov)      b. 15  9M 1695   (Nov)      b. 15  9M 1695
[4]  Mary,          b. 23  1M 1697 (Mar)      b. 27  1M 1697/8 (Mar)      b. 27  1M 1698
[5]  Enoch,         b.  9  7M 1698 (Sep)
[6]  Enoch,         b.  6 11M 1700 (Jan)      b.  7 11M 1700   (Jan)      b. 1  11M 1700
[7]  Abraham,       b. 22  6M 1702 (Aug)      b. 14  6M 1702   (Aug)      b. 14  6M 1702
[8]  Caleb,         b. 26  5M 1704 (Jul)      b. 26  5M 1704   (Jul)      b. 26  5M 1704
[9]  Joshua,                                  b.  2  1M 1706/7 (Mar)      b.  2  1M 1707
[10] Hannah,                                  b. 24  8M 1708   (Oct)      b. 24  8M 1708
[11] Patience,                                b.  2  7M 1710   (Sep)      b.  2  7M 1710

Sources for above

An Explanation from Jerry Richmond

One frequently runs into minor discepancies in vital statistics but I was struck by the unusual number pertaining to this family.

Surname is shown as Jobe on records of 1st 4 children at Chester MM & Job on 2nd 4 there; shown as Job on all records at New Garden MM. The Hinshaw Notebook on New Garden MM [column 3] can be contrasted with Humphrey's extracted Vitals [column 2]; some differences in interpretation. For the first 8 children, the records of Chester MM are to be preferred as being created more contemporary with the event recorded. The records at New Garden for the 1st 8 [less 1st Enoch who must have d.inf.] would have been copied from some document handed in by the parents. Either written by them or copied out for them by the Clerk at Chester MM. This introduces the possibility of error or differences.

Everything else being equal, I would give priority to column 1, the Chester MM extraction. I failed to mention in the e-mail that column 3 (which probably didn't line up well due to these stupid e-mail programs) was from my hard copy edition of Hinshaw's Notebook extract of New Garden MM which is by way of a double check on column 2, the New Garden MM stuff from Humphrey. The Hinshaw notebook does NOT show the double dating on the year as does the Humphrey version, which may be the result of reading something into original beyond what is there written.

Reason is that column 1 is a secondary source whereas for the 1st 8 children, columns 2 & 3 represent tertiary sources, as the New Garden MM records do not reflect records made contemporary with the births as is case with the primary records at Chester MM. The question then becomes, whose interpretation do you believe, since there are differences there. Also it is possible due to the differences between the Chester MM & the New Garden MM set of dates, that some significant errors were made originally and that the NG dates are the correct ones.

In cases like this, I usually go thru a mental process to decide which date seems most reasonable to accept and then show a note giving the alternate(s) and their sources."


Return to My Other Sites

Ann (JOBE) Brown
ann@personainternet.com

P.O. Box 475, 15 Orford
Copper Cliff, Ontario, Canada P0M 1N0

Return to My Main Index Page