Apologetics · Subscriber investigation
The Minimal Facts Approach, Revisited
Its strength was never the counting. It was the refusal to argue from premises the other side rejects.
By J. T. Hollan|Aug 22, 2026|9 min
Updated Sep 2, 2026 at 8:52 PM EDT
The minimal facts approach asks what can be established using only data granted by the large majority of scholars working in the field, including those hostile to the conclusion. Its appeal is procedural: it does not require the interlocutor to concede inspiration, or even general reliability, before the argument begins.
The standard critique
Critics answer that consensus is not evidence, and they are right that it is not. A poll of specialists tells you what specialists think, not what happened. But the method does not treat consensus as evidence; it treats consensus as a filter on which evidence to argue from. That is a different move, and it is a modest one.
Thirty years on, the method deserves both its defenders and its critics a fair hearing.
Already have an account? Sign in
Subscriber investigation
Two ways to read this article
Documents cost money to obtain, authenticate, and defend. Subscriptions pay for the filings, the court records, and the time it takes to read them twice. Apologetics essays stay free for everyone, always.
Create an account
Free
- Three metered articles a month
- Every apologetics essay, always free
- Save stories to your account
Subscribe
$8 / month
- Unlimited access to every investigation
- The full Evidence Desk, unredacted
- You fund the filings and the court records
This article continues at The Crozier Report. Subscribe to keep reading.