Статья "Астрономическая переоценка Вифлеемской звезды – нова в 5 г. до н.э." 1977

[  ] Старая статья для ознакомления с некоторыми астрономическими версиями. На самом деле в этом небесном знамении Бога всё гораздо сложнее и красивее, как будет показано в Евангелии Неба.

en

An Astronomical Re-Appraisal of

the Star of Bethlehem

– A Nova in 5 year BC

(Received 1977 June 6)

David H.Clark*, John H.Parkinson

Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London,

Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey

and

F.Richard Stephenson

Institute of Lunar and Planetary Sciences, School of Physics,

University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU

*Present address: Royal Greenwich Observatory, Herstmonceux Castle,
Hailsham, East Sussex.

 

SUMMARY 

Evidence is presented that New Stars recorded in the Far Eastern annals

may be independent sightings of the Star of Bethlehem. A bright nova which

appeared in the spring of 5 year BC appears to be the most likely explanation

of the event. The Jupiter-Saturn planetary conjunction hypothesis of Kepler,

perpetuated by several subsequent investigators, receives its quietus [argumentation].

 

---

1.  INTRODUCTION

      The nature of the Star of Bethlehem has been a source of considerable speculation ever since its original appearance. This paper discusses the possibility that events recorded in the Far Eastern annals may be independent sightings of the star, which we suggest might have been a bright nova which appeared in the spring of 5 year BC.

      Of the four Evangelists only Matthew (2: 2-12) mentions the appearance of a star in connection with the birth of Jesus Christ. This apparent lack of interest probably reflects the early Christian pre-occupation with the resurrection and teachings of Jesus, and stories of His birth were included by Matthew and Luke either for completeness or in order that the earlier prophecies might appear to be fulfilled. These infancy stories were written essentially from a theological standpoint, but any historical content must have circulated mainly in oral tradition long before its incorporation in the gospels. It is possible, therefore, that the Biblical event is mythical, and so may be similar to the solar eclipse claimed by Luke (22: 44-45) as having taken place at the time of the crucifixion  (Sawyer 1972), or the event may have been miraculous, and therefore beyond scientific description. If the event described by Matthew in his gospel was an actual celestial phenomenon, then it would almost certainly be mentioned in the astronomical records of the Far East where, at that time, observational astronomy far surpassed that in the Middle East and Europe.

      There are sound reasons for believing that the Incarnation occurred near 5 year BC. The first of these is calendrical. In AD 533 year the Scythian monk Dionysius Exiguius [Latin for the Humble] fixed the beginning of the New Era and thus our present system of year numbering by a process of back-dating, but he overlooked four years of the reign of Emperor Augustus. Secondly, Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem while Herod was King. The death of Herod is well dated to mid-March-end May 4 year BC by its proximity to the lunar eclipse of 4 year BC March 13  (Josephus, Finegan 1964) , and early sources seem agreed that Jesus was born not long before Herod died. We have accordingly examined the Far Eastern records for several years around this time.

2. FAR EASTERN OBSERVATIONS 

      Between 10 year BC and 13 year AD we have found only two sightings of new stars. The first sighting is recorded in the Astronomical Treatise of the History of the Former Han Dynasty (the Ch'ien-han-shu):

      Ch'ien-niu is a small asterism (star group) containing α and β Capricorn together with a few fainter stars  (Ho 1966) , and is centred just north of the ecliptic (1950 coordinates:  RA = 20^h 15^m, dec = -15°; coordinates for year 5 BC:  RA = 18^h 25^m, dec = -19°. Hui-hsing means broom star or a sweeping star and is the term usually applied to a comet with a discernible tail  (Stephenson 1976). A description of a hui-hsing generally makes mention of its motion, for example the Chinese record of Halley's comet in 12 year BC, likely to be made by the same group of astronomers, traces the comet's motion through more than ten asterisms, some 150°  (Ho 1962). As the 5 year BC record does not mention any motion it seems likely that this object may have been a nova and thus at a fixed celestial location, with a rayed appearance resulting from distortions within the eye which can occur for very bright objects. Several examples of such mis-classifications have been found in the Chinese records  (Clark & Stephenson 1977) ,  for example Tycho's supernova of 1572 year AD was also described as a hui-hsing.

      The second sighting appears to have been made in Korea and is recorded in the History of the Three Kingdoms - Chronicle of Silla (Samguk Sagi):

      Ho-ku is an asterism in Aquila centred on the first magnitude star Altair  (Ho 1966)  (1950 coordinates:  RA = 19^h 45^m, dec = +9°; coordinates for year 4 BC:  RA = 18^h 15^m, dec = +6°). Po-hsing generally refers to an apparently tail-less comet or to one that sends out rays evenly in all directions  (Stephenson 1976). However, because this record is so brief, we cannot be certain whether this object was a comet or a nova. It must be remembered that these Far Eastern records are generally summaries of the original records, often with considerable loss of detail, so it is difficult to interpret them precisely. Additionally, at this very early period in Korean recorded history, the above report must be considered as being of doubtful reliability. In fact, the date given in the Korean report is impossible as there was no chi-yu day in the second month in that year  (Ho 1962), and so there must be an error in either the day, month or year. There are three possibilities:

   (i) the day is incorrect. The characters for chi and i are very similar and are often confused in manuscripts. The i-yu day would be 4 year BC March 31.

   (ii) The month is incorrect. A month earlier would put the sighting on 4 year BC February 23, a month later would be 4 year BC April 24.

   (iii) The year is incorrect. Such an error, combined with (i) or (ii) above, could put the sighting in the fifty-third year, i.e. the spring of 5 year BC. At first sight this possibility may seem unlikely, but if the Korean report does refer to an event in 4 year BC, then it is unusual that more competent Chinese astronomers did not record it.

      The asterisms of Ch'ien-niu and Ho-ku are only some 20° apart and these two records could either both be referring to a single nova somewhere in the region between these asterisms in the spring of 5 year BC or they could be referring to a nova in 5 year BC and a separate comet/nova in the same part of the sky in 4 year BC.

      One item in Matthew's account which may have a possible astronomical significance is the reference to the star's position being 'in the eastern sky' (en 'te anatole). The asterism Ch'ien-niu, centred 5° north of the ecliptic would rise some 4½ hours ahead of the Sun in 5 year BC mid-March, and so would be compatible with the above rendering, as would the 4 year BC object. A nova in the vicinity of Ch'ien-niu would be observable for an increasing period of a few hours each day prior to sunrise. 

3. THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE STAR 

      Neither Matthew nor the Far Eastern texts contain any direct evidence on the brightness of the star, although the period of visibility of the Chinese object would tend to suggest a fairly bright object at maximum. Novas generally have a rapid rise to maximum light followed by a much slower decline. They have a small range in absolute magnitude but a wide range in apparent magnitude is observed because of the differing distances involved. A nova observed to decay by at least five magnitudes in seventy days would be classed as fast or moderately fast  (Payne-Gaposchkin 1957), so such an object could justifiably be classed as a typical nova.

      Comets show a much slower rise to maximum light, but this portion may well go unnoticed until the apparent magnitude reaches approximately +2. A comet observed for a subsequent 70-day period would be expected to reach a very brilliant maximum, probably brighter than Venus. Such bright comets are, however, observed to move rapidly when passing close to the Earth – of the order of 10° per a day, and so, as we have seen before, it is difficult to reconcile the 5 year BC report with a comet.

      Several of the early Christian writers mention the star, for example Ignatius writing early in the second century AD (Epistle to the Ephesians, ⅩⅨ) claimed that the star was so bright 'its light was unspeakable, and its newness caused astonishment'. Origen, writing in the first half of the third century (Against Celsus, Ⅰ, 58) seems to have been the earliest to speculate on the real, physical nature of the star. He wrote that it was 'a new star unlike any of the other well-known planetary bodies ... but partaking of the nature of those celestial bodies which appear at times, such as comets (etc.) … '.

      The possibility of a bright object cannot be ruled out on the grounds that few people noticed it, for there are several later examples of supernovae, e.g. that which produced the Crab nebula in AD year 1054, which went unnoticed, or at least unrecorded outside of the Far East  (Clark & Stephenson 1977) . As we will see later the astrology of the Middle East was concerned with the Solar System rather than with the apparently fixed stars, so it is likely that only very bright new stellar objects or comets with well-developed tails would be recognized. 

4. DIFFICULTIES WITH PLANETARY CONJUNCTION EXPLANATION 

      Kepler suggested (in the early seventeenth century) that the star was nothing more than a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 7 year BC. This suggestion has been repeated by many subsequent authors, most recently by  Hughes (1976), with little new research on the subject. In fact, even Kepler was not the first to make this suggestion. In the Annals of the Abbey of Worcester  (Luard 1869), we find under the year AD year 1285:

      We have calculated that on 1285 December 31 the two planets were in fact a mere 0.17 degrees apart, representing a far more spectacular conjunction than that of 7 year BC – see below. It has not so far been possible to find the true origins of the planetary conjunction hypothesis. Post facto attempts to relate the astrological significance to the Jewish race of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, and the constellation Pisces (in which the triple conjunction of 7 year BC occurred), to the 'announcement' of the arrival of their New King, are fraught with inconsistencies.

      We have calculated the separation of Jupiter and Saturn for 7 year BC and 6 year BC, with the help of Tuckerman's tables (1962), and these are shown in Fig. 1 for separations of less than 4°. The first (May 27) and second (October 6) conjunctions had a minimum separation of 0.98° and the third (December 1) had a separation of 1.05°. Thus, it is clear that the conjunctions were unspectacular, the planets never coming closer than approximately two apparent lunar diameters and so there is no possibility that the two planets could be close enough to appear to merge together to form a single, bright object. We feel that such uninteresting events would arouse little comment at the time. Incidentally, the conjunction dates given above differ from those calculated by  Pritchard (1856)  and quoted by several subsequent authors. It now appears that Pritchard underestimated the geocentric longitude of Jupiter by approximately 8 arcmin and overestimated the longitude of Saturn by 5 arcmin. As all the latitudes have only been overestimated by some 30 arcsec these errors merely alter the dates of the conjunctions.

      To assess further the scope of Middle Eastern astronomical observations near the beginning of the New Era, we have translated the Babylonian cuneiform almanac for the year 305 of the Seleucid era (7-6 year BC). This clay tablet contains predictions for the dates of equinoxes, solstices, and eclipses as well as giving the zodiacal sign for the known planets (and the date of entry where appropriate), and for the Sun, Moon and the 1st mag bright star Sirius. There are no predictions for planetary conjunctions but the dates for the stationary points in the retrograde loops of Saturn and Jupiter are given. Stationary points are difficult to determine with the unaided eye, as the planet is moving so slowly on either side of these points (approximately  ¼°  in one month). In general, the accuracy of all such predictions is high, ranging from 1-2 hours for the start of solar eclipses down to a few days for the stationary points for Saturn and Jupiter, after allowing for an apparent one-month error in one of the dates for Saturn. From this it appears that planetary motions were well understood so that there was little chance of the Babylonians being surprised by or even unduly interested in the planetary conjunctions of 7 year BC.

5. CONCLUSIONS

 

      The Star of Bethlehem was most likely to have been a bright nova recorded by the Chinese as appearing in the spring of 5 year BC. The Korean report may be a complementary sighting of this nova or it may be referring to a separate event in the same part of the sky in 4 year BC. In the Middle East at this time, only the most spectacular events would arouse sufficient interest to be recorded and we judge the star to have been in this category, thus making it one of the earliest instances where a 'new star' has been recorded outside of the Far East. Many authors have tried to fix the date of the birth of Jesus Christ from the date of the appearance of the star. As much contemporary information went unrecorded at this time a post facto association may well have arisen linking the birth with the star's appearance, rather than there being an inherent correlation. If there is such an association then the birth probably took place within a year or so of the spring of 5 year BC.

REFERENCES

© Royal Astronomical Society

     [ Эта научная статья процитирована на сайте в научных, исследовательских, полемических, критических и информационных целях. ]