Here is the second part: Number 2. This statement contains two (2) errors of fact: a). the name error is treated in 1, a, above; b). the second error is "born in Pennsylvania in 1700." For that to have happened, Michael would have had to grab a diaper and hurry back to Baden to get ready to descend the Rhine with his father and brother in 1709. Further, he did not arrive in Pennsylvania until at least 1723. Yes, he was said to have been born in 1700, perhaps about 01 Jan, but in Germany. Common sense, along with logic and facts force us to completely reject this seemingly innocuous statement. [see Jones and Graeff, above.] Number 3. This statement contains two (2) errors of fact: a). the first is "He married Elizabeth Zephebe, …." The most important problem with this is that there never was a person by that surname. That surname is totally synthetic. It somewhat resembles one made up out of whole cloth by clerks in New York Colony who were trying [and not very well, at that] to write a name pronounced by an immigrant German who, of course, could not write or speak English. English clerks, and especially those with Irish or Welsh roots, frequently created such names [and would continue to do so until after 1800]. One clerk certainly did when a particular German immigrant took the oath of allegiance to the crown at Albany, New York, on 31 Jan 1716. That German was Johann Conrad[t] Dieffenbach, who on that occasion was recorded as "Johan Coenraet Jefbach." Much later, when he clearly signed his 22 July 1737 will as "Johan Conrad Dieffenbach," it was indexed [probably by a Welshman] as that of "John Cynraed Tiffebogh" after the will was probated. That Johann Conrad[t] Dieffenbach had a daughter, Maria Elisabetha [baptized, Baden, 1705], whom he acknowledged in his will as married to an Ernst in Tulpehocken. Michael was the only Ernst there at that time. It becomes obvious that later members of families allied to the Harnesses, their memories somewhat dimmed by age and distance [Helen Black, for example, was writing about a man and wife who were born about 175 years before her letters!], began to use vaguely remembered syllables, and arrived at "Jephebe" and "Zephebe" and other forms not unlike those of the clerks. Apparently, no one ever bothered to wonder if these names could have been real! [Jones, as above; the Dieffenbach Will, Tulpehocken, 22 Jul 1737, as recorded 11 Oct 1738 in Philadelphia County at the Courthouse; Ray J. Dieffenbach and George L. Irgang, Johann Conrad Dieffenbach of Tulpehocken, Berks County, Pennsylvania (typescript, 1982, pp. 3-5, 7, 10-13); and Graeff, as above] b). the second error of fact is in the phrase, "a relative of Penn." This completely is without basis, unless Penn initiated a family "on the other side of the blanket" when he was on the continent in 1677 with George Fox. Here, no one thought to wonder how an Englishman whose first visit to the continent wasn't until 1677 could have been related to a German family who never left Baden until 1709.

And that relates my wife Dale F.Hames/Sloat/Deffenbaugh to me.R ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 17 25 PM Subject: Problems in harness Research - 2 Here is the second part: Number 2. This statement contains two (2) errors of fact: a). the name error is treated in 1, a, above; b). the second error is "born in Pennsylvania in 1700." For that to have happened, Michael would have had to grab a diaper and hurry back to Baden to get ready to descend the Rhine with his father and brother in 1709. Further, he did not arrive in Pennsylvania until at least 1723. Yes, he was said to have been born in 1700, perhaps about 01 Jan, but in Germany. Common sense, along with logic and facts force us to completely reject this seemingly innocuous statement. [see Jones and Graeff, above.] Number 3. This statement contains two (2) errors of fact: a). the first is "He married Elizabeth Zephebe, …." The most important problem with this is that there never was a person by that surname. That surname is totally synthetic. It somewhat resembles one made up out of whole cloth by clerks in New York Colony who were trying [and not very well, at that] to write a name pronounced by an immigrant German who, of course, could not write or speak English. English clerks, and especially those with Irish or Welsh roots, frequently created such names [and would continue to do so until after 1800]. One clerk certainly did when a particular German immigrant took the oath of allegiance to the crown at Albany, New York, on 31 Jan 1716. That German was Johann Conrad[t] Dieffenbach, who on that occasion was recorded as "Johan Coenraet Jefbach." Much later, when he clearly signed his 22 July 1737 will as "Johan Conrad Dieffenbach," it was indexed [probably by a Welshman] as that of "John Cynraed Tiffebogh" after the will was probated. That Johann Conrad[t] Dieffenbach had a daughter, Maria Elisabetha [baptized, Baden, 1705], whom he acknowledged in his will as married to an Ernst in Tulpehocken. Michael was the only Ernst there at that time. It becomes obvious that later members of families allied to the Harnesses, their memories somewhat dimmed by age and distance [Helen Black, for example, was writing about a man and wife who were born about 175 years before her letters!], began to use vaguely remembered syllables, and arrived at "Jephebe" and "Zephebe" and other forms not unlike those of the clerks. Apparently, no one ever bothered to wonder if these names could have been real! [Jones, as above; the Dieffenbach Will, Tulpehocken, 22 Jul 1737, as recorded 11 Oct 1738 in Philadelphia County at the Courthouse; Ray J. Dieffenbach and George L. Irgang, Johann Conrad Dieffenbach of Tulpehocken, Berks County, Pennsylvania (typescript, 1982, pp. 3-5, 7, 10-13); and Graeff, as above] b). the second error of fact is in the phrase, "a relative of Penn." This completely is without basis, unless Penn initiated a family "on the other side of the blanket" when he was on the continent in 1677 with George Fox. Here, no one thought to wonder how an Englishman whose first visit to the continent wasn't until 1677 could have been related to a German family who never left Baden until 1709.