Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[Mudhammam]

One interesting problem in reconstructing a plausible scenario for the development of first-century Christendom---one that is easily though lazily addressed by the Christ-mythers, as every other historical question of some perplexity is presumably treated by them ("It's all fiction! Like Charles Dickens! Boy, solving that was just so simple for me!")---is the absence of any interest or mention by the disciples of a location for Jesus' tomb, if he was even really buried as they proclaimed from early on. It is a far bigger problem for Christians, in my view, considering the importance, both from the standpoint of its significance in religious worship and for their apology of a death and resurrection (however that may have been initially interpreted), that one can imagine such a location might have possessed. For the historian it seems to be a question that is much more open ended in terms of speculation over what actually happened when Jesus' corpse came off the cross, and how that affected the texts they came to write just decades afterwards.