Returning to the subject of the OP, it seems to me that the "Minimal Facts" approach rests on an inherent dishonesty. The premise is that Christians can abandon the most grandiose claims of the Gospels--Herod's "massacre," Augustus' Empire-wide "census," Jesus' "ministry" of miracle-working in front of crowds of thousands, the mini-zombie apocalypse (some significant number of people who crawled out of their graves and entered a major metropolis swelled with hundreds of thousands of pilgrims from all over the Roman Empire, many of them literate), a "great earthquake" (which would surely leave physical traces in structures built prior to that time), and the Sun and stars turning off
for three hours--in order to withdraw to a more defensible citadel of a handful of "facts" they hope can be used to make a resurrection of Jesus seem plausible.
The alleged "facts" also happen to be the ones that would attract the least notice from outsiders: an "empty tomb" only a handful of people would know was "empty" (or even occupied by Jesus in the first place), and claims by Jesus' devoted followers to have "seen" him after his death. IOW: "All the really BIG miracles in the Gospels? We'll give you guys those as mythologizing or exaggerations or whatever, and make our stand around three ordinary events (a troublemaker got crucified by the Romans, a body was put in a tomb, a tiny cult of people who loved him said they saw him after death, sometimes in mystic visions) and one odd, but still not necessarily supernatural event (body turns up missing)."
This is done with the hope that, if they can make the resurrection sound historically plausible, they can triumphantly shout, "Therefore, Christianity is true!," sally forth from their little redoubt and reclaim all that stuff they couldn't defend, and maybe go onward to snag Noah's Ark while they're at it. The "concession" and retreat to the "minimal 'facts'" is a Lucy's Football. They don't really mean it.
It's also self-refuting: if all those great big, grandiose miracles that would have been witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people, if not the entire human population at the time
could have been false, allegorical, or whatever, then we have no reason to trust the honesty of the Gospel authors when it comes to the "resurrection."
And we're back to the fact that, whether there be gods or Sufficiently Advanced aliens, or mighty necromancers, or other powers capable of resurrecting dead people, they exhibit a remarkably consistent
pattern of not
doing so. So much so that we have no reason to think that such powers are really there, just waiting to pick out some singular exception to the generalized principle that dead people don't come alive again.
Honest apologists should be willing to try and defend the whole territory of miraculous Gospel claims, rather than abandoning it in a tactical trick and hoping to snatch it all back again later.