I don’t understand your point here… are you really this obliging to the ancient sources?
You say they never mention the date, but they mention the date in Spring which, exactly months later, lands them on December 25?
I have to think you have never raised children. You’d be an easy mark for most any 6 year old convincing you that he never once saw the cookies - - up on the 4th shelf, next to crackers - - and since he never saw the crackers I can’t tell you what brand they were.
If it were plausible that Jesus was actually born in the middle of winter, I could see the point of all these gymnastics, @Jonathan_Burke. But when all these varting methods are used to get the audience to the exact same “false” date - - why would you even think about accepting their rationalizations for how they arrived at the date?
Next: Scholarly Consensus?
Do you have some sort of geiger counter that starts making noise when you get near the scholarly consensus?
Yes, I would agree with the Scholarly Consensus that all these folks used every method they could find to justify the date of December 25 (without mentioning the date of December 25).
The one sentence to which I object, and which - frankly - sounds more like your voice than “Scholarly Consensus” is the last sentence of these three:
" A long standing myth of Christian history is that the date and celebration of Christmas were based on a pagan date which was ‘Christianized’ by the church.
 This myth appears is reinforced by its appearance in standard reference works such as the New Encyclopedia Britannica, and Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions.
 Current scholarship on early Christiantity, as well as on early Roman religion, has long since dismissed this myth."
So what exactly is the myth? What is the obvious fiction? That the Church “Christianized” pagan holiday?
Do you make this claim because you don’t believe the Church ever Christianized a pagan holiday? You do know that Rabbits don’t lay eggs, right? Do you think Current Scholarship dismisses the Easter Bunny as well?
You do know that the title “Pontifex Maximus” was a Pagan title that was retrieved from disuse and “Christianized” as one of the Pope’s new titles?
We all know the term “Yule” refers to Christmas. The “Yule Log” is a special log burned during the season. But we also know that the word is older than Christmas, so the term had to have been Christianized:
Yule: “Christmas, the Christmas season, or Christmas festivities; (in combination): yuletide”
When we look at the word’s Origin: “Old English geōla, originally a name of a pagan feast lasting 12 days; related to Old Norse jōl, Swedish jul, Gothic jiuleis”
As I said before, your article is perfectly interesting in the details that scholars have uncovered. But you haven’t provided any refutation for the obvious motivations behind the saintly intelligentisia of the age wanting Jesus to be born on December 25.
If there was general agreement that the First Noel is correctly depicting the season of Jesus’ birth, then you would have an ounce of a chance of being convincing:
Hum along with me if you like:
"The First Noel the angel did say. Was to certain poor shepherds in fields as they lay;
In fields as they lay, keeping their sheep, On a cold winter’s night that was so deep.
Yep… that’s when the shepherds are outside, sleeping in the snow, or in the freezing cold at the very least - - intentionally - - so that the song writer will have something interesting to sing about !
But, in fact, all these creative ways of getting Jesus born on the Wrong Day, and on a day (and its 3 day pause) that is Astrologically notorious for Pagan associations and interpretations (including Tammuz) - - all these competing explanations frankly shout to the world that Christians wanted Jesus born on December 25, but wanted to have a better reason than because it was a Pagan Holiday . . .