I've looked at the "phantom time hypothesis" fairly closely, and it looks like 1800 years was added. The problem is, it's not just that someone took every date and added 1800 to it. The timeline is actually a giant mess.
First, the gap of 1800 comes from the work of Sylvain Tristan. He puts it as going from (what we now call) 500 BC to 1300 AD. There are certain reasons to think this gap should more profitably be thought as running from 600 BC to 1200 AD. Now, why would that be?
The beginning date marks the start of what even the mainstream acknowledges as the "Axial Age". There's even a wiki page for it but I have casually collected several times more evidence than they tell you about on the page. The human race seems to have "woken up" at that time. (There's a much longer story as to why.)
The later date I believe to be related to the actual date of the Crucifixion, in what we now refer to as the year 1185 AD. The Nativity was, correspondingly, in the year 1152 AD. There is quite an amount of evidence for these dates collected in Chapter 1 of Anatoly Fomenko's book, "Tsar of the Slavs".
If this all sounds like lunacy, I'll add an even loonier point as a bonus:
There is a theory not far out of the mainstream that calculates that Jesus was born on September 11. Some conspiracists then believe that the 911 attacks took place on that that date as an occult ritual mocking of Him.
In that Fomenko book, Chapter 2 goes on to advance the theory that Jesus was actually based on a real historical Byzantine emperor, Andronikos I Komnenos. I've never studied his hypothesis so I don't have an opinion on it yet, but I did notice this: Andronikos died on September 11.
I've looked at the "phantom time hypothesis" fairly closely, and it looks like 1800 years was added. The problem is, it's not just that someone took every date and added 1800 to it. The timeline is actually a giant mess.
First, the gap of 1800 comes from the work of Sylvain Tristan. He puts it as going from (what we now call) 500 BC to 1300 AD. There are certain reasons to think this gap should more profitably be thought as running from 600 BC to 1200 AD. Now, why would that be?
The beginning date marks the start of what even the mainstream acknowledges as the "Axial Age". There's even a wiki page for it but I have casually collected several times more evidence than they tell you about on the page. The human race seems to have "woken up" at that time. (There's a much longer story as to why.)
The later date I believe to be related to the actual date of the Crucifixion, in what we now refer to as the year 1185 AD. The Nativity was, correspondingly, in the year 1152 AD. There is quite an amount of evidence for these dates collected in Chapter 1 of Anatoly Fomenko's book, "Tsar of the Slavs".
If this all sounds like lunacy, I'll add an even loonier point as a bonus:
There is a theory not far out of the mainstream that calculates that Jesus was born on September 11. Some conspiracists then believe that the 911 attacks took place on that that date as an occult ritual mocking of Him.
In that Fomenko book, Chapter 2 goes on to advance the theory that Jesus was actually based on a real historical Byzantine emperor, Andronikos I Komnenos. I've never studied his hypothesis so I don't have an opinion on it yet, but I did notice this: Andronikos died on September 11.
Weird, right?