The Mystery of the Mismatched Church Records

Many genealogists rely heavily on church records. We search indexes, compare entries, and assume that a church book is simply the record.

But what if there is more than one version?

Understanding the difference between original and duplicate church books can explain why records, and even indexes, do not always match. This article uses a practical example to show why.

P.S. This also applies to Vital Records.

This translates to: "Certified as matching the main register."

Church Records Online

Experienced genealogists will already know that FamilySearch.org, Ancestry.com, Matricula-Online.eu and Archion.de - among other online offerings - allow users to search a wide range of German church record collections online. Please note that you will need an international subscription if you do not have a German account with them.

(The German Genealogy Collective has produced a guide so you can learn how to navigate ARCHION effectively: https://germangenealogycollective.com/archion-research-guide - Matricula Research Guide coming soon!)

One example from these two websites is the duplicate copies of Brandenburg Protestant church records. These cover:

• Brandenburg

• Parts of Pomerania

• Parts of Posen

• Parts of Silesia

• Approximately 1700–1874

These particular records are held by the Brandenburg State Archives in Potsdam.

Two Archives and Two Church Books - But Why?

The Protestant Regional Church Archive (EZA) in Berlin also holds church records from Brandenburg and other areas.

This raised some important questions:

• Why are church records from Frankfurt/Oder in Berlin, but not in Potsdam?

• Why are both Protestant and Reformed church records for Neuruppin in Potsdam?

• What is the difference between the holdings in Berlin and Potsdam?

While researching, I found useful historical background on the Berlin archive website.

The Legal Basis for Church Records

The General Land Law for the Prussian States (1794) summarized for the first time the rules governing church record keeping.

Section 481 states:

"The ministers are obliged to keep accurate church records and to enter therein clearly and legibly all banns, marriages, births, baptisms and burials performed by them, as well as all those concerning the parishioners and reported to them."

This explains why church records were carefully maintained. However, it still did not clarify the difference between the Berlin and Potsdam holdings.

The Key Explanation

I contacted the archivist at the Regional Church Archive in Berlin a few years ago, who kindly explained the situation.

The answer is simple:

• The Evangelic Central Archive (EZA) in Berlin holds the first copies - the original church records.

• The Regional Brandenburg Main State Archive (BLHA) in Potsdam holds the second copies - the duplicates.

These are commonly referred to as primary and secondary copies. The Berlin holdings are the primary (original) church books, while the Potsdam holdings are the secondary (duplicate) copies. It is important to note that name indexes and church book entries may not always match, because the index may relate to one set (primary) while the surviving book belongs to the other set (secondary).

This distinction is extremely important for researchers.

Why Were Duplicates Made?

Until recently, I assumed duplicates were created purely as a precaution - in case of fire, flooding, war, or other disasters.

Before photocopiers and scanners existed, duplicates had to be copied by hand, often by candlelight, using quill and ink. It must have been slow and exhausting work.

However, I was mistaken in my original assumption.

The duplicates were not created merely as a safety measure. They were produced as official state records and handed over directly to the local courts. In effect, they were predecessors of the civil registry system introduced between October 1874 and January 1876.

So in practical terms:

• The primary (original) church books remained with the church.

• The secondary (duplicate) copies were submitted annually to the courts.

Why the Archive Holdings Differ

This explains the present-day situation.

Berlin holds surviving original Protestant church records. These remained with church authorities unless destroyed by fire, water, war, or other disasters.

Potsdam holds duplicate copies submitted to the courts. These were stored independently of religious denomination, though some were also lost over time due to fire, war, flooding, or even disposal due to lack of storage space.

Because the two sets were stored separately, survival patterns differ. Sometimes only the original survives. Sometimes only the duplicate survives. Occasionally both exist - and when they do, differences can occur.

It is also worth noting that the Potsdam collection extends beyond Brandenburg itself, covering parts of Pomerania, Posen, and Silesia. These regions temporarily fell under Brandenburg's administrative jurisdiction following the territorial reorganizations of 1939/1940, triggered by the German invasion of Poland.

Why Do the Two Books Sometimes Differ?

Several factors come into play.

One is timing. The original entry was typically recorded shortly after the event. The secondary copy was often written later - possibly at the end of the year - by the same scribe copying the entire book in one sitting. Given the conditions, mistakes due to fatigue or difficulty reading the original handwriting are understandable. But the time gap could also work in the researcher's favor: by year's end, additional information may have become known. A child born earlier may have died; a newly married couple may have already welcomed their first child. Remarks reflecting these updates are not uncommon in secondary copies, which is why the duplicate occasionally contains more detail than the original.

The other factor is the scribe. If the original and duplicate were written by different hands - different pastors, or perhaps the village schoolteacher filling in - spelling variations in names are almost inevitable.

__________________________________________________________________________________

This investigation can teach us a great deal - not only about archival practice, but also about historical geography.

More importantly, it highlights a practical lesson for genealogists: always check whether you are consulting the primary (original) or secondary (duplicate) copy. If indexes and entries do not match, they may simply be referring to different sets of records.