Probably, but not because of Springtime, or a "Star". The Month of May is an afterthought, but justifies posting this now. (!) The more pertinent issue by far is that Jesus was probably born in 7 BC. Why? Two significant issues give us actual, limited and calculable data sets, resulting in two particular data sets which, when compared, eliminate all but a twelve month window of time in which Jesus must have been born.
That's all valid, of course, if the data is good. With that said, please enjoy what here follows:
The first data set is based on the dates of Jesus' most likely twelfth years.
On the most common suggestions for Jesus' birth year - 7 BC, 6 BC, or 5/4 BC - Jesus will have turned 12 years of age by the Passovers of AD 7 or AD 8 or AD 9, respectively. Interestingly, each of those latter dates fall shortly *after* Augustus Caesar exiled Archelaus from Judea. This is most likely significant.
Once Archelaus was exiled, Joseph in Nazareth could stop being afraid to take Jesus into Judea (Matt.2:22). And with that well deserved fear firmly out of the way, Joseph was free to take Jesus to Passover, as Luke tells us he did for the first time, precisely when Jesus was 12 (Luke 2:42).
Since Archelaus was exiled in the summer of AD 6, the most likely first Passover for Jesus should be March/April of AD 7. Thus, Jesus' birth most likely belongs somewhere in the 12 months between Passovers from 7 BC to 6 BC. As we're about to see, this corresponds well with the more likely conclusions of data set number two.
The issues of set one are summed up simply enough. The second set requires a more thorough discussion.
The second data set is based on estimating the logistics of Rome's odd inaugural registration in Palestine.
Granting the likely conclusion that Augustus' brief and yet famous displeasure with Herod (9 to 8 BC) is still the most likely cause of the most basic fact - that [as Luke testifies] Augustus ordered a census in Judea while Herod was still King - there are a limited number of things which must transpire directly after that order before Joseph can actually register in Bethlehem. So, what did the census entail, and how long did it take?
We'll address specifics in just a moment, but the main point is quite simple. If Governor Saturninus received Augustus' order for that census as early as January of 8 BC, can the resulting activities have been still going on for a number of years? Was Bethlehem really not registered until 7 BC? 6 BC? 5 BC? Early 4 BC?
We can estimate basic parameters. For one thing, the Governor Saturninus (not Quirinius) had to receive orders form Ceasar (probably winter of 9/8) and make plans. But the particular strategy (the Governor's preference?) of recalling men to their hometowns - though perhaps thorough for an inaugural effort - must have created significant challenges for both planning and execution phases, in turn.
The typical Roman census (before 27 BC) happened only in Italy. By this time, the style seems to have been very simple, something like: 'We're coming. When we get there, you'll register.' In stark contrast, Saturninus created (or was handed?) what was likely a scheduling nightmare! Now, Saturninus *could* have sent five or ten soldiers to every city and village, at once, stationed there for six months while the whole country was told to go home and register asap! That's conceivable. However, because of manpower and management issues, it seems more likely that direct registrations would have been scheduled at staggered intervals. Certain men had to go home at set times, and other men had to remain home, in charge of things, while their new blood was away and while their village was hosting it's homecomers.
On any arrangement, it seems unlikely that much efficiency would have been possible. Nevertheless, could even the worst managed fruit-basket turnover have lasted much longer than 2 years? Is 3 years even possible? By 13 AD, in Italy, with everyone knowing the program, Tiberius could dispatch a re-registration of the entire peninsula within less than a year. Did Saturninus really need 3? Did he even need 2?
As for Joseph & Mary, two details are important. First, we must note that Rome's census only seems to have been their excuse for a permanent relocation, where Joseph's kinfolk could offer Mary a welcome respite from her scandal in Nazareth. Second, we must remember that Luke does not say whether Mary gave birth before or after Rome finished registering Bethlehem. It's very possible they moved early, gave birth and then registered, and it's equally possible the young couple moved, registered while pregnant, and then gave birth sometime later. Either way, the "child" and the "room" (and Matthew's entire infancy narrative, actually) testify that Bethlehem had become the new settled home town for Joseph & Mary, at the time of the birth.
A few more key points: Saturninus' term as Syria's Governor was over by July, 6 BC. It seems likely that *either* Saturninus would have found ways to wrap things up quickly by the end, rather than tell Augustus he'd not completed his work, *or* that Saturninus simply would not yet have been recalled if he'd not yet been finished. Perhaps. At any rate, the next Governor of Syria, P. Quinctillius Varus, was commissioned in January of 6 BC, and replaced Saturninus by the middle of sailing season. It's conceivable that Varus could have been tasked with completing a mess made by Saturninus, but more likely that Saturninus would have fudged things well enough to pronounce it all finished by 6 AD.
The one point in Saturninus' favor, in terms of speed & efficiency: Saturninus only had to count people, and not register their property, (setting up cause for the protests of AD 6, when this aspect was introduced).
So, when was Bethlehem registeed? We cannot specifically say. But, when was Rome's census completed? On the balance of all above considerations, it was almost certainly sometime in 7 or 6 BC.
The two data sets produce the same most likely range for the year in which Jesus was born. Of greater critical importance is the observation that each set of probable dates eliminates the extremes of its complementary data set. In other words, set one seems to allow dates that set two disallows, and set two seems to allow dates that set one disallows. Put together, only the shared data becomes viable.
Jesus must have been born somewhere between the Passovers of 7 BC and 6 BC.
But now, can we be more specific? Is there really a reason to prefer a birth date around May of 7 BC?
There are three good reasons to lean heavily this way:
First, although the registration of Bethlehem cannot be specifically dated, common sense must recognize that it's geographic location make it unlikely to have been the last location Rome registered. That means, on the balance of general statistical likelihood, the registration of Bethlehem itself was probably somewhere in the middle of Saturninus' whole operation. Again, we cannot hereby declare that it actually fell "in the middle". That's not hardly the point. What we can say - in general - is that there's an 80 percent chance (or better) that it did NOT happen in the last 20 percent of the census' duration, and a 70 percent chance it did NOT happen in the last 30 percent of that time, and (etc...). On the absolute sum of all such general percentages, the overall weight of these facts can be though of as a general gravitational force, pulling our estimation of when Bethlehem *might* have been registered) somewhat closer to the midpoint of Saturninus' operations - the which gravitationally attractive midpoint, being between January 8 BC and June of 6 BC, happens to fall around March of 7 BC, or perhaps slightly thereafter.
This does not mean we should find the registration of Bethlehem very close to March, 7 BC. This means, on the balance, that we are more likely to find Bethlehem's census to be probably nearer to March, 7 BC than to June, 6 BC. Especially note that this becomes all the more true, and even stretches toward earlier midpoint dates, if we consider the odds that Saturninus did NOT conclude his census at the absolute latest possible moment. As a practical consideration, however, this point pushes against the equally uncertain question of how long Saturninus' must have planned and revised various fruit-basket-turnover schemes before actually putting registration officials' boots on the ground.
Again, Bethlehem was more likely finished with sooner than later. But remember, Mary just as likely (if not more likely) gave birth *after* that registration than before it.
Second: Jesus' birth month cannot be specifically dated based on whichever "Star" the Magi may have followed into Judea. On the other hand, Herod's cautious targeting of Bethlehem two year olds seems less mathematically extreme if the star & Magi arrived significant months after Jesus' birth. The Magi's visit to a "child" also makes some span of time seem more likely. Now, having granted our twelve month window for Jesus' birth (again, occurring between Passovers of 7 and 6 BC) we may consider which "Star" candidates allow what kind of spacing prior to their own occurrence and the most likely candidates - all of them - require that Jesus' birth be more likely earlier into our window than later, and this is especially true if we select the famous triple conjunction of 7 BC, visible repeatedly in May, October and December. A Magi trip beginning before or after December of 7 BC would fit well with the story, but would also more likely push Jesus' birth month as far back as April or May.
The final consideration should properly bear no historical weight whatsoever, but it's an interesting footnote worth mentioning only because it would agree with the leanings of these last two minor considerations. It's a dubious typological point that may be judged as inspirational or as nonsense, but it corresponds well so it deserves to be included, last and least. It is this. If Jesus was born in either April or May of the year 7 BC, and if Jesus was crucified and resurrected in the year 33 AD, and because there was no year zero, then Jesus would have turned 39 in April or May of the year 33 AD. Of course, "turned 39" is to say, in the ancient mindset, "began his 40th year". The significance here is that this 40th year would have begun just prior to Jesus' ascension. In other words, IF the Lord Almighty God had any peculiar divine reason to prefer that Jesus' earthly adventure should not end until his physical form (albeit newly resurrected) had reached the fullness of that number of years... IF that were God's desire, then a birth date in April or May would have provided just such a time, between Incarnation and Ascension.
Personally, April seems as likely to me as does May, but early May would provide the latest birth date for the Father to say, "39 years and one day. That's enough. Come home now, my Son."
Again, this final point may be judged as trivial or inspirational, depending solely upon how conclusive all the other arguments seem to be.