A good point has been raised regarding the inclusion of items which could be embarassing in the gospels helping support the claims for historicity. However, to claim these points as definitive ignores other points that seem equally valid. Of the gospels, only Luke and John claim to be telling the truth, and they do not agree in many areas. Further, it does not take much effort, given a knowledge of the politics of the mid to late first century, to detect political messages in both Matthew and Luke.

I would rather take the embarassing comments as evidence to a hsitorical core to the gospels, but not as support for their complete historicity.