rlogan

I don't know about methodology in history.

But it seems whatever combination of "embarrassment criterion" and Historical Methodology or epistimology I type in to google-

The stuff that comes up is all historical Jesus material.

Is this actually a criterion that secular historians use?

Suppose I were interested in some detail about Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin. How would I apply this criteria? Would it only be applicable to an autobiography? Do we apply it to works that reflect well on them in general?

Isn't there just more of an idea that you should evaluate the source? Is there a corollary principle that we should disbelieve if it is flattering? Is there a criterion of neutrality too?

If I were to evaluate the Bible sources objectively I'd say that it was an unknown source. Red flag number one. It has absurd stuff in it. Red flag number two. Self contradictory in the most important places. red flag number three. Lack of physical evidence. Etc.