Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[alatar]

Originally Posted by obloquy

If you "take the celestial out of it" you end up with a meaningless myth. In the Old Testament, gods other than the Hebrew God Yahweh are false gods; powerless, and therefore only pagan symbols, not real beings. If you imagine that Goliath had any real gods backing him, you deprive the story of its relevance, since it is relevant only as an expression of the sole divinity of Yahweh. It was never a story of the weak overcoming the strong; it was always a story of Yahweh protecting his chosen people from the surrounding pagans. If you don't share that Hebrew monotheism, there's no reason to believe it ever happened, and there's no lesson to be learned from it. Whether you believe the story or not it is completely misapplied in this discussion.

So what you're saying is that, for all, the words "David and Goliath" mean 'God protecting his chosen.' Interesting. Googling "David and Goliath" results in not only the Biblical references, but also the cartoon, the clothing company and many 'headlines' (such as here) where the words are used to mean something other than your definition.

Anyway, my point, now too long in the making, is that the reference to DvG to me (and I assume at least one other far across the pond) is shorthand for the weak beating the strong.

I never said Biblical misunderstanding and misapplication is uncommon.

I apologize for being dense, but I'm not sure what that means.

Yes, it was Merry's blade. The blade was imbued with the power of its anonymous maker, which was power enough to undo the protective power over the W-K. How much part Providence played in these circumstances is a pretty wide-open discussion.

Agreed. But if we extend your DvG argument, is not Merry's hand, the hand of the blade's maker, the leg of the Witch-King and the worms underneath all the work of the hand of Eru? As you say, this may be another thread's material, but what part does an individual play? Could Merry have resisted planting the blade in the Witch-King's sinew?

But to get back on track, did PJ consider this topic so deeply? Or is there the cinematic formula to be followed that audiences require a 'boss' in a story on which to focus?