Metatron Made Some Mistakes in His Video on Historic Truth being Objective

Metatron Made Some Mistakes in His Video on Historic Truth being Objective · First Half of a Video by Kristi Burke · Continuing with Kristi Burke

Here is his video:

The TRUTH About Historical Revisionism, Once and For All
Metatron, 1 June 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-fK55zA4iY

Here are my answers:

10:39 Fact - when Thomas Morus knew that Tyndale had left the country (searched for translating the Bible into English, which in English - national - anti-heresy laws was an offense), he notified the Holy Roman Empire, as he was minister of Henry VIII - Tyndale later died burned on the stake as a heretic in Vilvoorde (and it was not for the Bible translation).
Fact - when Thomas Morus was asked to make a pledge to Henry VIII, he refused because the pledge contained wording referring to the King, which according to Catholic Church law and by now even dogma, as well as the Bible as Thomas Morus read it, could only licitly be applied to the Pope.
Fact - before either happened, when Thomas Morus was corresponding with Erasmus, he wrote some humourous poetry, one of the pieces of which paints a rape as sth actually desired by the woman.
Fact - he gave his daughter an education in Latin, something in these days often done only for men.

TRUTH = how these facts add up.

Was Thomas More a villain and Tyndale a hero, and More just outvillained by another villain, as some Protestants think?
Was Thomas More on the contrary doing his duty without overzeal when it came to Tyndale and then a real hero when it came to opposing the Oath of Supremacy?
Were Tyndale and More both heros, like C. S. Lewis thought?

You know, there was a correspondence between CSL and an Italian obviously Catholic priest, held in Latin. In it, I think it was, CSL arged "Tetzel and Henry VIII were damned men. I'll grant you Luther and Torquemada too. But Tyndale and More ..." were in his view heros.

Back when I read it, my Latin wasn't good enough to read the Latin pages in facing pages, I read the English.

All three views cannot be correct. But all three can be defended, at least by people who have no known irrationality beyond taking the wrong side in a confessional quarrel.

Similar, was More a misogynist or a feminist, or neither?

There is of course another view entirely : that historic truth is NOT concerned with "histoire événementielle" or history of events, only with history of culture, which is more neutral ground, and perhaps a bare facts approach to very major and undisputed events. Perhaps that one is yours, but if so, it is a highly revisionist one ...

11:52 literary evidence, cultural evidence, archaeology ...

None of these will per se give us a certain and on all parties undisputed view of the Storming of the Bastille.
None of these will per se give us a certain and on all parties undisputed view of the characters of Tyndale and More.

They may in some cases give us clues on whether the Southern States were deluded in thinking they could win the war (a new industralised way of making military boots quicker than before was in the hands of the North), but even that will not determine who was fighting for the right or wrong thing (on my view, both good and bad motives were mixed in those fighting on both sides).

Eyewitness reports are the major knowledge basis for events.

Sounds like you are somewhat outside the view that history is still concerned with events ...

12:10 Good luck confirming the Battle of Cannae or the battles in Caesar's Gallic war. By archaeology, that is.

It's even tough to ascertain Waterloo by archaeology by now, and absolutely impossible for battle field archaeology of Waterloo to determine (without the actual reports) who won.

I'll give you a very schematic reason for that kind of impossibility, with a battle field archaeology far beyond that of Waterloo in preserved materials.

Suppose you find 10 clear Hittites or Japanese dead.
Suppose you find 100 clear Romans or Vikings dead.

You could reason the Hittites or Japanese had fewer casualties than Romans or Vikings. But what this will not tell you is who had most surviving soldiers after the battle. If you reason Hittites or Japanese won, you might be right if Hittites or Japanese were numbering 1000, and Romans or Vikings 200. But the 110 corpses you find will not tell you the numbers of those surviving and walking away. It could also instead be, Hittites or Japanese were very good at inflicting fairly huge losses quickly, and that explains the 100 Romans or Vikings you find, while when depleting the method (perhaps some kind of kamakaze, but wood and cloth is already lost, so you couldn't identify a WW-II Japanese airplain), the Hittites or Japanese had already lost ten, but seeing they were outnumbered by far gave up to avoid further losses (admittedly, not a very bushido thing to do ... but that's outside the archaeology).