The point about the Gregorian calendar being off by only 10 days instead of the expected 13 is especially interesting because it's easy to see how you could regard it as a sort of "smoking gun" of the Phantom Time Hypothesis. The supposed lack of archaeological evidence is suggestive, but can be pretty easily dismissed with "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But here you have a prediction that about 300 years are missing and this would directly explain the observed discrepancy in the drift of the calendar.
As the author points out the problem is resolved because the Gregorian calendar reform only intended to reset the calendar back to the time of the Council of Nicaea, not the date when the Julian calendar was originally adopted.
It's a neat example of how a theory's smoking gun can sometimes have an entirely unrelated explanation and a warning that even when you think you've found conclusive proof, it's important to keep digging.
As the author points out the problem is resolved because the Gregorian calendar reform only intended to reset the calendar back to the time of the Council of Nicaea, not the date when the Julian calendar was originally adopted.
It's a neat example of how a theory's smoking gun can sometimes have an entirely unrelated explanation and a warning that even when you think you've found conclusive proof, it's important to keep digging.