In a 2003 translation of Dionysius Exiguus'Paschal table, you find

"CCXLIII
243 (527)viiiiiiiixiik.Apr.
Apr 01ii non.Apr.
Apr 04xvii"

The translator says 243 Anno Diocletian= 527 AD, but I will now show 243 Anno Diocletian= 525 AD, the consulship of Probius Junior, when Dionysius claimed he was writing.

Notice the 243 Diocletian Paschal moon is on April 1st, the founding day of Rome.

Fourmilab Calendar Converter has the following:

January 1, 44 BC = 1704988.5

But the Intergravissimas Papal Bull of Pope Gregory XIII never added 10 calendar days to 1582, therefore

January 1, 44 BC = 1704978.5

Now it's easy to prove that the Intergravissimas never added 10 calendar days to 1582.

In the thread

Rome was founded on Aprilius 1, 685 BC, on the day of a solar eclipse

at Historum

I proved day one of the Octaeteris was 1570570.5 plus or minus a day, and I showed how the Octaeteris treated the mean tropical year as 365 days. By 46 BC the vernal equinox slipped 89 days through the Octaeterian solunar calendar, prompting Julius Caesar to add about 89 days to the calendar in order to place the vernal equinox back to where it was in 412 BC. The following simple calculation reveals the Julian day number of day one of the Julian calendar, plus or minus two days:

1570570.5 + (412-44)*365+89=1704979.5

The point is, this calculation proves the Intergravissimas never added 10 calendar days to 1582, because 1704979.5 is 9 days before Fourmilab's JD 1704988.5 for the same day.

525 AD Vernal Equinox

2298952.5= 1582 vernal equinox [exact time]

1 tropical year= 365.2422 days

2298952.5-(1582-525)*365.2422 =1912891.495 UTC = 1912891.529 Rome time = 525 AD Vernal Equinox

524 AD was a leap year
There are 1461 days per Julian cycle.

Using Fourmilab's JD for January 1st 44 BC, with a 10 day correction we must have:

January 1, 524 = 1704978.5 + (44+524)*1461/4=1912440.5

Aprilius 1, 525 AD =1912440.5 + 366+31+28+31=1912896.5

So 525 AD Vernal Equinox on March 27th.

Now to get the Paschal Full moon of 525 AD go back from the December 1922 full moon

2423392.25 [exact time] = December 1922 full moon

by 17287 synodic months.

1 synodic month=29.530588 days

2423392.25-17287*29.530588=1912896.975 = 525 AD Paschal Full moon

And I showed Aprilius 1, 525 AD =1912896.5

Therefore the 525 AD Paschal Full moon was on April 1st, and Dionysius Exiguus has that Paschal moon in

CCXLIII Diocletian= 243 Diocletian.

Therefore

243 Anno Diocletian=525 Anno Domini

which was to be shown.
Q.E.D.

So

1 Anno Diocletian=283 Anno Domini

The Roman consul list has

"284M. Aurelius Carinus Augustus IIM. Aurelius Numerianus Augustus
suff.C. Valerius Diocletianus Augustus(L. Caesonius?) Bassus"

So Wikipedia has 284 AD = 1 Anno Diocletian

But in reality 283 AD = 1 Anno Diocletian.

Therefore, the Roman consuls for 1 AD

1 AD. C. CaesarL. Aemilius Paullus
Jul.M. Herennius Picens

Were really the consuls in year ZERO.

Therefore there was a year zero, which was to be shown.
Q.E.D.

So whoever wrote Dionysius Exiguus' Paschal table told the following lies:

1. 325 AD Vernal Equinox on March 21st.
2. 525 AD Vernal Equinox on March 19th
3. 241 Diocletian= 525 AD

The Truth is

1. 325 AD Vernal Equinox on March 30th
2. 525 AD Vernal Equinox on March 28th
3. 243 Diocletian=525 AD.

And they left a clue that they were a Christian hater, not a monk. The clue is at the very start of the table.

YEAR OF DIOCLETIAN
CCXXVIIII
229 (513)

WHY DOES THE TABLE START WITH 229 DIOCLETIAN?

The answer has to do with the first year of Nero.

In an earlier thread of mine at Historum

I alluded to the fact that Nero started a calendar that began with the first year of his reign.

Thus

1 Anno Domitius=54 AD

Diocletian did the same thing in 283 AD.

1 Anno Diocletian = 283 AD

230 Anno Domitius = 1 Anno Diocletian

To convert an Anno Domitius date to an Anno Diocletian date you have to subtract (283-54)= 229 years from the Anno Domitius date. That's why the table starts with 229 Anno Diocletian. The compiler was familiar with the 229 year conversion factor.

At Wikipedia it states:

"Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (/ˈnɪəroʊ/ NEER-oh; born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus; 15 December AD 37 – 9 June AD 68) was Roman emperor and the final emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, reigning from AD 54 until his death in AD 68."

Nero had Christians crucified in his gardens according to Tacitus.

t Wikipedia under Diocletian 

It states:

"The Diocletianic Persecution (303–312), the empire's last, largest, and bloodiest official persecution of Christianity, failed to eliminate Christianity in the empire. After 324, Christianity became the empire's preferred religion under Constantine."

So both Nero and Diocletian were Christian haters, and there were 229 years between their years of accession. The compiler of Dionysius Exiguus' Paschal table knew the 229 conversion factor between the two anti-Christian dating systems, so on the basis of that, and their many lies, I have inferred they were a Christian hater also, not a monk. The table was designed with three lies in mind.

Lie 1: there was no year zero.
Lie 2: the 325 ad vernal equinox fell on March 21st.
Lie 3: the Julian day number of day one of the Julian calendar is 1704978.5, and Augustus never canceled a leap day.

In reality,

Fact 1: there was a year zero.
Fact 2: the 325 ad vernal equinox fell on March 30th.
Fact 3: the Julian day number of day one of the Julian calendar is 1704977.5, and Augustus canceled leap Day in 16 BC.

I made a small omission.  The 325 AD Vernal Equinox fell on March 29th under the assumption that day one of the Julian calendar was 1704978.5, and Augustus never canceled leap day in 16 BC. If you know day one of the Julian calendar was Julian day number 1704977.5, and Augustus canceled leap Day in 16 BC, then you can correctly conclude that the 325 ad vernal equinox was on March 30th.

Hello Lee and welcome to the Res His' board.

Personally I'm not so much fascinated by dates, per se, but I am interested in how the passage of time has been calculated and recorded: how calendars arose, how they were calculated, how they have changed and how the different ones used throughout history can be reconciled one to another ... and yes how, say, changing from the Julian to Gregorian calendars affects how historic dates are recorded and how they relate, then and now, to the sidereal seasons as defined by the earth's movement around the sun. Your post includes a lot of numbers and calculations and I for one will need a bit of time to work through it so I can't give you any immediate response.

You added a second post about a small omission ... just note for the future that you can always edit your original post (there's an edit button at right adjacent to your post's title) and indeed if no-one else has replied since you first posted it, any changes, additions or amendments will not appear as 'edits', but seamlessly as part of the original post. I find this very useful when I, almost inevitably, spot a glaring spelling mistake or other stupid error, immediately after clicking 'send'.