The Minimal Facts Approach, Revisited

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.

Where the method is weakest

It is weakest when its defenders inflate the list. A fact granted by sixty percent of scholars is not a minimal fact, and presenting it as one damages the argument that does not need it.

It is also weakest when it is deployed as a conversation-ender. The method establishes a set of data. Explaining the data still requires the comparative work.

Where it is strongest

Against the claim that the resurrection is a purely confessional matter with no historical footing, the method does real work. There is a body of data. It is early. It requires explanation.

Say that much, carefully, and you have said something a serious critic must answer.