To: All researchers of Andrew Job Jr. I've had some discussion with a few regarding the dates of birth for Andrew Job Jr's children. With permission, I am forwarding 3 letters that I received from Jerry Richmond from a lookup that he did from two different sources - that covers the 3 MAIN PRIMARY/SECONDARY records where the births are shown - 1) Chester, 2) New Garden and 3) Hinshaw. I discussed it with Freida and we really felt that this was some information that I should share with those on the list and have in the archives. Hopefully the columns will line up reasonably straight. I practiced sending to myself first and came back to me ok. My mail box is set at Arial 10 but know this is going plain text. Ann (Jobe) Brown *LETTER OF PERMISSION From: "Jerry Richmond" <[email protected]> To: "Ann (Jobe) Brown" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:15 PM Subject: Re: Re: Quaker question - Andrew & Elizabeth Job > Ann - Feel free; I have no vested interest in this matter at all. I have the resources at hand and was happy to do . . . (and you folks) the favor of laying this out. One frequently runs into minor discepancies in vital statistics but I was struck by the unusual number pertaining to this family. I will also forward you a copy of the additonal note that I sent to. . . on this matter. Regards, Jerry Richmond **ORIGINAL LETTER --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Jerry Richmond" <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 00:09:40 -0600 Subject: Re: Quaker question The Quakers did not baptise; they did not believe in it. So that's not what is going on. We are looking at good old fashioned differences in interpreting primary records. I don't have Launcy & Wright, but I do have John T Humphrey's Birth Index of SE Pennsylvania (CD#196). He shows children of Andrew & Elizabeth as follows: 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 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. As can be seen there are discrepancies between columns 1 & 2 for all of the children except for Caleb. Note that none of the DOBs reported for Mary correspond with that given in the Jobe Journal (2nd issue, June, 1988), her birth is given as: 3 Twelfth Month 1696. According to an article on _Early Settlers of the Nottingham Lots_, NGS Quarterly, Dec 1982, Mary is shown as b.23 1M 1696/7. References are Futhey & Cope, _History of Chester co,PA_; George Johnson,_History of Cecil co,MD_, & F J McGuire, _Descendants of Andrew Job_, manuscript at Chester County Hist Society. Regards, Jerry Richmond You are cordially invited to visit "The Quaker Collection" http://home.sprynet.com/~jrichmon/qkrcoll.htm ***FOLLOW UP LETTER Ann - This is a note that I sent . . . earlier this evening. Regards, Jerry Richmond From: Jerry Richmond <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:47 AM Subject: Re: Quaker question 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. Regards, Jerry Richmond