DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS ERRS in 525 AD

ONLY in 525 AD did Dionysius Exiguus, acting under the orders of Pope St. John I,
retroactively set the start of the current era to 1 Anno Domini
- the alleged date of the birth of Christ - based on what the Encyclopaedia Britannica
(at the entry Dionysius Exiguus) calls "a modified Alexandrian computation
(95-year tables evolved by the patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria)
based on Victorius of Aquitaine's 532-year cycle." This made the calendar a mess. Prior to this time, the calendar had been dated to the alleged date of the founding of Rome.

As the Britannica writes, Dionysius "WRONGLY dated the birth of Christ according to the Roman system (i.e. 754 years after the founding of Rome) as Dec. 25, 753."

This is of course was in error because, as noted in the Britannica under Christianity, "Origins of the Church Year", it is stated: "Early Christians believed that the new age promised by Jesus
had dawned with his RESURRECTION", NOT at his "human birth". Hence, Dionysius, should have set the Winter Solstice date of December 25, 786 "after Rome" to mark the human birth of Jesus. Historians we have continued this error ever since, bending Roman history into a ridiculous pretzel-form to make it suit the errored chronology.

Based on a scholarly treatise by Ernst Hollstein, Mitteleuropäische Eichenchronologie [The chronology of Europe by dendrochronology (study of tree rings)] Roman Chronology is prima facie wrong by ca. 30 years. As Hollstein states, when you have enough samples - dating to a year by tree rings is no problem. His massive volume of nearly 300 pages of oversize paper is an astute, detailed synthetic scientific work of the kind which made German scientists famous in past centuries. In Hollstein's book, published in 1980 (he has since passed away), there is found what "mainstream" historians subsequently have erroneously alleged to be a 26-year error in Hollstein's data, since that data diverges from accepted Roman Chronology by that amount of time - not by any particular intent by Hollstein, but simply because that is what the tree-ring data gave as results. No one had any idea "why" the data diverged. Mainstream scholars of course thought Hollstein had erred, never thinking to examine their OWN historical chronology, which in fact is based on less solid grounds than Hollstein's work - and, in the end result, is simply wrong. They have erred.

At page 74, Hollstein discusses his tree-ring data for the Roman Bridge at Cologne, Germany, which according to an analysis of the remains of trees used to build it, was built ca. 336 A.D., whereas the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (the first emperor to adopt Christianity and thus to bring it to the Western world) held a speech in Trier about the building of this very same bridge - by current chronology - at the end of July, viz. beginning of August in 310 A.D. - a full 26 years years PRIOR to the building of the bridge. Someone had erred - was it Hollstein? No, the tree ring data are clear and there is no serious dispute about these tree ring findings. In fact, as Hollstein himself observes, earlier dendrochronological dates from the nearby grave under the later-built Cologne Cathedral (Kölner Dom) had already pointed to a date of ca. 338 A.D. and since then - underneath the southern "Querhaus" of the Cathedral - twelve [astronomers take note] wooden posts were found - arranged as Hollstein notes in a "circular stave" fashion, with evidence that they supported a roof. This construction is ALSO dated to ca. 338 A.D. Hollstein even writes that he regretted (p.5) already in 1972 not having accepted his earlier dendrochronological findings as fact, even though they contradicted the 310 A.D. date used by the mainstream historians for the comparable period. In Hollstein's words in German "Ich hätte das jetzt vorliegende wahre Datum dieser Pfähle 336 n.Chr. (vgl. Köln, Rheinbrücke) bereits 1972 akzeptieren müssen...."

Essentially, Hollstein was by no means thrilled with his dates, since they put him into a scientific quandry, having data which contradicted mainstream chronology, and having no explanation available for the deviation. For an understanding of the accurate Roman chronology, however, the results of Hollstein are essential and useful, since they also point to a circa 30-year error in calendration. Obviously, the tree-ring data were tied to a Roman Chronology and a 0 BC date which was wrong.