Okay, I know there's nothing shocking about that title. This has been the case for 2000 years now, but today's New York Times brings it to the table once again. The story calls the resurrection into question because a tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew on it seems to indicate that there was a tradition that the Jewish Messiah would die and be raised from the dead in three days. So, some are concluding that this in fact proves the resurrection of Jesus to be fabricated because Jesus and his followers were just trying to "fit the mold" of what the Messiah was to be.
The problem, of course, is that this reasoning negates the resurrection regardless of whether there was such tradition or not. If the resurrection occurred and there was no written tradition for such in Judaism, then he cannot be the Jewish Messiah. Instead, they claim this concept was developed later and written back in by the disciples. Now, they say, it can be proven that the tradition pre-dated the cross, but that simply means Jesus was trying to be something he wasn't. Instead of modifying their conclusions, they keep them, because they are already convinced such a resurrection is not possible.
There are few clearer examples of forcing the evidence to justify one's conclusions. A natural conclusion would be that this concept came from the OT Scriptures, though possibly misguided at times and misdirected (ie the Messiah being someone named Simon as the article indicates). Jesus himself said that Jonah's three days in the whale was a sign. So, there is OT precedent for a concept of three days.
I pray God will open their blinded eyes.