[The Saucepan Man]

Of course there is a difference

No, not in terms of trying to determine the nature of Tom's existence from what we know of him (which is the primary theme of this thread). Tom's behaviour might (or might not) tell us whether or not he is marred, but I do not believe that it can tell us the extent of any marring.

If we were to determine from Tom's depiction in the books that he is marred, then that would be consistent with burra's theory of Bombadil as the embodiment of Eä. It would also be consistent with any theory of Bombadil as an inhabitant of Arda. But I do not believe that we would be able to tell from such depiction the extent of the marring such that we would be able to ascribe a greater likelihood to one theory or the other. That is what I meant when I questioned whether there was really any difference between the two "types" of marring.

If, on the other hand, we were to determine from Tom's behaviour that he is not marred, then neither burra's embodiment of Eä theory nor any Bombadil as Arda inhabitant theory can explain his existence. In those circumstances he would have to have originated from outside Arda.

The question is, can we tell from Tom's portrayal in the books whether or not he is marred? You are of course right to allude to the fact that he is not tempted by the Ring as relevant in this regard, Sharkû. To me, this suggests that he is not marred, since the Ring works by appealing to the evil, ie marred, side of those with whom it comes in contact. If Tom has no marred side, the Ring cannot appeal to him. Indeed, it has no effect on him whatsoever. Anyone else have any views on this issue?

I did not say a representation of Eä would have to be all that, but Eä itself.

Sorry! Loose wording on my part. For representation read embodiment.

The representation idea is not explaining anything anyway.

Agreed. See above.

Of course we are not discussing the significance of Bombadil on any level, literary or mythological.

Also agreed. But we not discussing his interpretation either. The point that I was making was that his interpretation as the "spirit of the vanishing Oxford countryside" does not explain the nature of his existence within the mythology any more than the "Bombadil as reader" theory.