This is related to the "Principle of Embarrassment" in hermeneutics. The idea is that "embarrassing" or inconvenient stories are more likely to have been true

This is related to the "Principle of Embarrassment" in hermeneutics. The idea is that "embarrassing" or inconvenient stories are more likely to have been true because there is no reason for someone to have made them up since they seem to conflict with the broader narrative, or at least complicate it. Another example is the discovery of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene and possibly some other women. At the time women were considered to be more untrustworthy, so the argument was that if the story was fabricated, surely the author would have decided to make the empty tomb discovered by a group of men since it would have been viewed by contemporary readers that this (already implausible) story was coming from a more trustworthy source. Of course, the most prominent example is the crucifixion itself, since crucifixion was reserved for traitors and the lowest criminals. If you're trying to argue that this man was the Son of God, why write a story in which at the climax he is executed as a despised criminal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment