tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post7181772333920540605..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: Original or Derivative Source? Bible RecordsRandy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-1977394780879347712012-06-15T09:07:40.349-07:002012-06-15T09:07:40.349-07:00Sorry for the two deletes! Having issues this morn...Sorry for the two deletes! Having issues this morning.<br /><br />As Dave tried to point out, the confusion comes when saying original and derivative.<br /><br />If I write a letter it is an original source. If someone copies my letter, the copy would be a derivative source. So, the person bought a Bible and wrote information in it, thus it is an original source for the written information, unless we know that the information was copied from some other list. If the person knew this information firsthand and wrote it in the Bible without copying it from some other source, then it is original. If the Bible entry had copied information, but the last birth (the one closest to the publication of the Bible) was written in at the time, then the Bible is original to that last birth. But even then, you can't know for sure if the info was copied or entered as known.<br /><br />What needs to be argued is not whether the Bible entries are original or derivative, but whether the information is primary or secondary. If the person who wrote information into this book was present at the births of those written (aside from herself), then her knowledge is primary information. If, however, she was told about or somehow learned about the births, then the information is secondary.<br /><br />And as already mentioned, her knowledge of her own birth is secondary information, as she was not capable of knowing the time and place of her birth until she was older and someone told her of the event. <br /><br />Angela-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-91812696025499505192012-06-14T16:42:25.259-07:002012-06-14T16:42:25.259-07:00I completely agree with Eileen and Anonymous (12:0...I completely agree with Eileen and Anonymous (12:00 AM PDT). What was written in the Bible, in your example, was not from first-hand experience as newborns do not take notes on the event (yet, anyway!). It was information related to the writer from another source, which could have been verbal or written.<br /><br />Kay is also right ("this is secondary information and can't be relied upon to the degree that a source based on primary information can be"). Very large numbers of people did not know their own birth-date, and large numbers of parents did not know such a date, much less have a written record of it. I know of a relative who simply did not believe his official birth record because his name was not on the hospital certificate (many children were not named the same day as born)!Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-42478209418264081132012-06-14T13:34:54.554-07:002012-06-14T13:34:54.554-07:00An earlier comment noted: "If i go out and bu...An earlier comment noted: "If i go out and buy a bible and start putting in my family tree, the bible will still be an original source. If someone copies the information, it becomes derivative." In this case, someone went out and bought a bible and copied hearsay information into it. If I copy a list of names and birth dates onto a blank sheet of paper, no one would question for a minute whether the list was original or derivative. What's the difference between copying a list onto a blank sheet of loose paper and copying it onto a blank sheet of paper in the flyleaf of a bible? But really, whether we call the bible entry an original source with secondary information or a derivative source with secondary information, is less important than our recognition that this is secondary information and can't be relied upon to the degree that a source based on primary information can be.Kay Rudolphnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-3290724806920215132012-06-14T08:12:47.309-07:002012-06-14T08:12:47.309-07:00I think it is a derivative source as it was entere...I think it is a derivative source as it was entered into the bible by someone who would only know the information by some other source. A person has no way to know their own birth date and place unless it was told to them. In court, I think this is called hearsay evidence. I have a family bible and while the bible belonged to my great-grandparents, the entries were made years later by my grandfather and he incorrectly entered the maiden name of his grandmother in a marriage entry he wrote in. Had the entry been made by the married couple it would have been entered correctly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-45473737565327200152012-06-14T04:43:30.830-07:002012-06-14T04:43:30.830-07:00This is why genealogists don't typically use t...This is why genealogists don't typically use the term original and derivative "source". We usually discuss "information". The handwritten bible is an original source. No question. If i go out and buy a bible and start putting in my family tree, the bible will still be an original source. If someone copies the information, it becomes derivative.<br /><br />Note, there is no discussion of the veracity of the information. Doesnt matter. Original refers to the source itself, the tangible thing. To qualify the data we talk about primary and secondary information. Bibles are usually secondary, but some information may be primary. If the author recorded the bitths of their children as they were born, its primary.Davehttp://200inparadise.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-55054299946900703102012-06-13T16:46:23.982-07:002012-06-13T16:46:23.982-07:00Interesting discussion! It sems to me, considerin...Interesting discussion! It sems to me, considering the arguments on both sides, that this becomes a judgment call for each of us. This is my "Pirates of the Caribbean" approach... The categories are guidelines, not rigid laws. Their function is to help us as we seek to resolve conflicts and develop sound, reasonable, and coherent conclusions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02854939812003260963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-87400548950562963972012-06-13T14:31:47.623-07:002012-06-13T14:31:47.623-07:00If her parents recorded her birth in a bible they ...If her parents recorded her birth in a bible they owned at the time of her birth (which they may have) that would have been an original source. Then if they parents got a new bible and copied the information to the new bible that would be a derivative source. In her case, her birth date is heresay, so to speak, sinc eshe really was not aware of it at the time.<br /><br />To me the purpose of original versus derivative is the validity of the data. Even her parents could have made an error when copying information over to a new bible.<br /><br />The further away an event is recorded the more liklyhood that an error creeps in.<br /><br />Of course, after all this there is no guarantee that a "typo" wasn't made in the "original" source either but, hey, it is the best we have.Eileenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00064329229537398807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-25997670155676885612012-06-13T13:42:33.211-07:002012-06-13T13:42:33.211-07:00I was also in Warren's session and have been t...I was also in Warren's session and have been thinking about the Bible example. I understood that the birth records could not be "original" because the Bible itself was not in existence at the time of the supposed birth; I believe it was printed some years later. <br /><br />I suppose that a birth entry made by a father or mother in a Bible clearly published before the birth date would qualify as an original source. Is that correct?Family Curatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13187854767575444823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-35919083758569089592012-06-13T12:17:59.144-07:002012-06-13T12:17:59.144-07:00I think the point of what he's saying, if I un...I think the point of what he's saying, if I understand, is that things written in the bible may well be wrong. We know that a lot of people didn't really know their birth year when you go back far enough. They may have written down in the bible the date they'd always assumed was theirs, but that doesn't mean they're always right, though derivative work isn't always wrong, so that follows, too. As for others' birth dates, that's derivative too, simply because you can't be guaranteed that the person had the book with them at the birth (if they were even there at all), and they may remember a day or even a year wrong, so relying on what's in a bible is shaky at best, and misleading at worst.<br /><br />I don't have many notes based on bibles in my own work (though not for lack of trying) but I would always believe another source over a bible. All the bible information would give is what one particular person (or family) believes is true, and may have many inaccuracies, no matter how carefully kept.Elf Flamehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18282791385562417473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-87256721391986535902012-06-13T11:44:51.430-07:002012-06-13T11:44:51.430-07:00I was also in Warren's class that day. I belie...I was also in Warren's class that day. I believe his point was that even though the person in question was present at her own birth, she did not have the mental capacity to know and understand it at the time it was happening. Thus the entry was made "after the fact," and thus, derivative.<br /><br />Also, he commented that the copyright date on the Bible was well after the date of all but one of the children's births, hence making those derivative. Not sure I agree with that.<br /><br />Personally, I think it's half and half: original information about the children's births, since the mother would certainly have been present at those (although not in the best frame of mind, from what I know of MY experience!), and derivative about one's own birth, and in this case, the birth location of the spouse. But I'm not sure I would want to argue any of this with Warren! ;-)Elizabeth O'Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03191827688514996520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-23278998883989373502012-06-13T10:55:36.653-07:002012-06-13T10:55:36.653-07:00Randy, I agree with you that the entries in a fami...Randy, I agree with you that the entries in a family Bible are an original source. If you were looking at a transcription of the entries, that would be derivative. The evidence provided by those entries is direct evidence of the date of the event (whether birth, marriage or death). What needs to be considered carefuully is (to quote EE) "the informant's degree of participation or knowledge." Although someone certainly was present at their own birth, their knowledge of the event is secondary.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02521713742642286287noreply@blogger.com