Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[Dakêsîntrah]

So no, he is not housed in essentially the same body; on the contrary, this presents a fundamental change, not just a hair tint and a romp through Galadriel's closet. Gandalf's physical manifestation has been divinely altered, so much so that he must drape himself again in his gray rags to hide his luminescence.

I concede that is the case from the text now. However, the physical *form of Man was not altered dramatically. Of course he was light "as a feather," and of course against his new and divinely incarnated sorcery skills, the Fellowship's Middle Earth weapons would be useless.

This still does not mean a spirit neither living or dead can be hindered with an enchanted sword versus Gandalf - still in the fleshly form of Man.

I agree with you, but I see Tolkien's Gandalf differently than you, perhaps because I am so entrenched in Christian theology.

In Christianity, Jesus is clearly said to be God himself, come to earth in human form, as one of the Trinity. He is not a created being, but was in existence for eternity. In Arda, there is no Trinity - there is only Eru, who is the sole god. He created the Ainur, of whom some are Valar and Maiar. These may be called "gods" by the Children, but they are clearly intended to be angelic creatures. Gandalf is one of the Maiar.

Of course there are various sects of Christianity, and I am sure Tolkien was aware of Gnosticism - a form of Christianity that went all the way back to the time of the apostles or beyond. I know I am probably going on a rabbit trail here, but whether or not Tolkien intended it, some of his Middle Earth "theology" has its roots in his Catholic orthodoxy, and then I see other concepts which have root in Christian Gnosticism. I'm surprised nobody has dealt with Tolkien's Gnostic parallels before, as far as I am aware of. Gnosticism was Roman Catholicism's ancient foe, and I am sure Tolkien came across these watershed traditions during his medieval studies - it is a thing that pervades not only church history, but secular as well.

So, in some Gnostic theology, Jesus is not God, and the Trinity is not really a Trinity, rather manifestations of the Godhead Himself. Much like the Eldar who seemed to emanate from Eru. And of course, as Jesus was an emanation, he was also a created being who came to earth in the guise of a man, as a Messenger. He was not the only Messenger to bring the Light in a Dark World. There were notably four other sages.

The one true God of the ancient Pneumatics was the Sumerian Anu - a close resemblance to the name Eru. Anu and Eru are able to manifest themselves through emanations - so I believe (all conjecture) that Olórin was some sort of manifestation of Eru Himself. Once again, nobody seems to talk about Tolkien and his parallels to even Sumerian myth, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out he knew quite a deal of it.

Gandalf's sacrifice was, I think, incidental. He happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time

If Olórin is an emanation of Eru, I cannot agree with "he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time." I see God's Will as all Sovereign. Whatever happens, whether tragedy or evil triumphs, it is still the Will of the God.

Best Regards

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

This still does not mean a spirit neither living or dead can be hindered with an enchanted sword versus Gandalf - still in the fleshly form of Man.

There is an interesting quote from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien concerning the 'real' power of the Nazgûl:

[The Nazgûl's] peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts)....They have no great physical power against the fearless.

Letter #210 (bolding added)

I don't think the same could be said of Gandalf.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

If Olórin is an emanation of Eru, I cannot agree with "he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time." I see God's Will as all Sovereign. Whatever happens, whether tragedy or evil triumphs, it is still the Will of the God.

The event was apparently not forseen by Gandalf, making his sacrifice distinct from that of Christ.

For all [Gandalf] could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success.

Letter #156 (bolding added)

Whether the fall of Gandalf was arranged by a Higher Authority is another matter. But Gandalf himself believed at the time that he had failed.
When Christ looked up and said 'It is finished', did He think his task had been unsuccessful?

[Mugwump]

Toklien clearly said that LofR was NOT intended to reflect Christian theology in any way or to be analogous to any part of it, and the only similarities lie in those elements that exist in all religions and all world myth.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

So, in some Gnostic theology, Jesus is not God, and the Trinity is not really a Trinity, rather manifestations of the Godhead Himself. Much like the Eldar who seemed to emanate from Eru. And of course, as Jesus was an emanation, he was also a created being who came to earth in the guise of a man, as a Messenger.

I can't claim to be an expert in Catholic, let alone Gnostic, theology, but I was raised a Catholic, and in the faith I was taught, there's a big difference between an emanation/manifestation and a created being - see the Nicene Creed, which stresses that Jesus was

God of God, light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father

(emphasis mine).
I won't deny that Tolkien may have been aware of the Gnostic tradition - after all, he was a man of considerable erudition; but it's a far cry from there to assuming he endorsed its beliefs to such a point that he'd have modeled the metaphysics of Middle-earth on them. As you said yourself, Gnosticism was Roman Catholicism's ancient foe, and the Prof was a devout Catholic.

But we're straying a bit off-topic here. Back to the parallels between Jesus and Gandalf.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

The nature of both figures are more parallel than the events that surrounded them.

Quite the contrary, I'd say. Their nature was quite different - one an angelic spirit (that is, a created being, although of the highest order), the other the Godhead itself made flesh. What's parallel is precisely the events: both made the ultimate sacrifice by offering up their lives in order to overcome evil (although on vastly different scales, and as Zil observes it was rather incidental in Gandalf's case); and in both cases the Father/Authority accepted and vindicated their sacrifice by bringing them back from death in a form that still preserved their human nature (Christ's wounds could still be touched by Thomas, Gandalf still ate, drank and smoked), but was transfigured into something that death and evil couldn't touch in the same way as before.
Which is the point I was trying to make when I said earlier that you were doing your case no favour by stressing the parallels between them. Agreed, Jesus during his earthly life could be tempted by Satan and experienced fear of death to the point of sweating blood; but Christ Resurrected? Satan wouldn't have touched him with a long pole. And Gandalf the Grey might have had reason to fear the WK with his power newly boosted by Sauron, but Gandalf the White? Not with any shiny enchanted Sword of Hellish Flames in Middle-earth.
As for Olórin (or the Eldar, for that matter) being an emanation of Eru himself, I'm really curious what in all of Tolkien's works (apart from Sumerian mythology, which he may or may not have been familiar with) you base this on.

By the way, thanks for adding some intellectual challenge to this discussion of a rather embarassing movie scene. This is fun!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

I concede that is the case from the text now. However, the physical *form of Man was not altered dramatically. Of course he was light "as a feather," and of course against his new and divinely incarnated sorcery skills, the Fellowship's Middle Earth weapons would be useless.

This still does not mean a spirit neither living or dead can be hindered with an enchanted sword versus Gandalf - still in the fleshly form of Man.

Was the WitchKing's sword enchanted? I don't believe that is stated anywhere. It seemed no more than a flashy parlor trick to me. Which leads me to believe that the WiKi really wasn't aware who he was up against. If anything, pyrotechnics would not be much of a concern to Gandalf, who is obviously a master of fire, what with being 'servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor', the old flaming pinecone trick, zapping Orcs in caves with lightning and blasting Nazgul with excorciating beams, not to mentioning wrestling for hours with a burning balrog and surviving long enough to kill it.

Besides, who is to say that Glamdring would not have its own efficacy against the WitchKing? It sliced through a Balrog, and was feared by Orcs many thousands of years after it was last used. It, too, had pyrotechnic ability and 'shone with a pale light' when enemies were about, and blazed 'bright as blue flame' when Gandalf trepanned the Great Goblin.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It seemed no more than a flashy parlor trick to me.

So we can take him to be "some conjurer of cheap tricks!"

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

So we can take him to be "some conjurer of cheap tricks!"

Actually, yes, when it comes to it. Think about any direct combat between the Nazgul and any foe that showed no fear: the WiKi/Nazgul fled from Glorfindel on two occasions, five Nazgul ran from Aragorn on Weathertop when the Ring was in their grasp, several more Nazgul were driven off by Gandalf at Weathertop and again in Gondor. Their primary weapon is fear. When faced by a foe who is fearless, the Nazgul flee, even when outnumbering their opponent. In the book, The WitchKing at the Gate of Minas Tirith tried to instill fear in Gandalf, but it did not work. Not even Shadowfax was fearful.

As I referred to previously, the WiKi's stunt with the flaming sword was the Middle-earth equivalent of a bully flexing his muscles. I've faced opponents like that and beat the snot out of them. Gandalf remains still and calm, watching for the opponent's next move, which is what one is taught to do in aikido, jiu-jitsu and other martial arts.

[Sarumian]

Dakêsîntrah,
I’m afraid you overestimate the potential of

a spirit neither living nor dead

who appears almost invulnerable in your version. But it seems to me that the shadowy being as it is couldn’t be very much more potent than some bodiless spirit like Sauron himself after his Ring was destroyed. In Dante’s Divina Comedia sinners’ souls are given some quasi-body – they are ‘shadows’. Shadow is incapable of making any physical impact on anything else, but can remember things and suffer from a physical torture. The spirit of Witch King is tied to his invisible flesh by Sauron’s spell, bound to a Ring of Power. Witch King exercises magic power according to his spiritual potency, most of which is provided by his Master. It is basically some amount of Sauron’s own power that keeps Witch King “alive”, active and powerful and protects him from many perils, until the bound is broken by the counter-spell of Mery’s blade.
Unlike to Witch King Gandalf has a human body which is not protected from suffering, but the crucial thing is that Gandalf can stay alive by his own will. Let me stress this, it is HE who decides whether he should carry on or pass. So his life depends on his own spiritual power and however wounded he was he would die only if all this power had been spent. Due to this, I believe, there was no total separation between

Gandalf's bodily authority

and

Olorin's authority as a Maia

but the former was rather based on the latter, which was, however, unknown to most people of Middle Earth. As a man with Maia’s immortal spirit, Gandalf didn’t have any reason to be afraid of death. He also didn’t fear suffering and pain as his combat with Balrog had shown. But in the scene we are talking about Gandalf’s will appears to be totally paralised. Does this make sense?
And now let’s make some calculation. Sauron took some capable men, made them dreadful and kept them alive for ages. Morgoth took some initially immortal Maiar, much more powerful then mortals, and turned them into dreadful Balrogs. Gandalf’s spirit was powerful enough to endure a long combat with such an enemy, but when Witch King approached him in the movie, he lost completely and in one moment. We know as well, that almost all Witch King’s power comes from Sauron. So can we estimate how much of Sauron’s power should’ve been invested into Witch King to suppress the spirit of the other powerful Maia? I can’t measure it in per cents but I’m sure it is the amount that Sauron would never have dared to hand out to any creature, especially after his disastrous experiment with the Ring. It seems to me that Nazgul can be useful for Sauron only if they don’t have power to clame the Ring, otherwise they'd become very dangerous servants.
This is why I think that Witch King couldn’t posess such a power to break Gandalf’s will and the movie scene doesn’t fit into Tolkien’s universe. However I’d like to thank

Dakêsîntrah

for introducing some interesting points.

[Sarumian]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

It is basically some amount of Sauron’s own power that keeps Witch King “alive”, active and powerful and protects him from many perils

After some consideration I have to correct this point: it was the ring of Power which was responible for 'runing' a wraith, so there was not only Sauron's power, but also power of elf-smiths involved.

However neither of them could create someone comparable to a maia without loosing too much of thir own essence, I believe.

[aldredheron]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and argue a position I don't agree with with.That position is PJ is right to weaken Gandalf because by doing so he increases the heroism of the humans (Aragorn and Eowyn). The fact that Gandalf loses to the Witch-King shows how heroic Eowyn was in standing up to him. The fact Gandalf is hesitant gives Aragorn a chance to assume the role of leader. Now I could almost live with this position if it wasn't for the fact that Aragorn then turns around and tries to confront Sauron with the palantir and ends up running from the orb like a coward.
I think PJ tries to humanize everyone too much and they come off looking weak a great deal. The human element in LotR has, for me, always been the hobbits. Heck, by the end of RotK in the book Aragorn is only ever called Elassar (sp?) and seems much more removed. But it is the hobbits that symbolize the reader in the book, they are normally the ones that you can most relate to in the books.