Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[Dakêsîntrah]

The Witch-king's vulnerablity to destruction is clear: he was rendered impotent by two mortals.

So you're inferring the Westernesse blade is able to 'kill' something neither living or dead? How does that work? I think Tolkien may have created for himself a little paradox.

I just don't think it would be in the nature of a sword, no matter what kind of magic enhances it. A sword is made to ultimately kill even in Tolkien's universe, but a physical weapon terminating a spiritual being is not logical.

Gandalf had Glamdring, but that apparently would not have any real effect on the WK.

So the Witch-king would temporarily stun Gandalf and mow him down with the flaming sword.

He may have had a notion of who or what Gandalf the Grey was, but the contemptuous tone in which he adressed Gandalf doesn't sound to me as if he had any idea how his opponent had been changed and enhanced by being resurrected.

Rather it seems to me that regardless whether WK went up against Gandalf the Grey or Gandalf the White, he would still have a chance at beating him with the enchanted sword. I think he could care less who Gandalf was bodily; but I don't think he was stupid enough not to realize Gandalf's innate divinity had risen in his Spirit. What the Witch-king could do however is wrench Gandalf's bodily authority or reputation away from him. And again, render Gandalf useless without bodily form.

But if that was so, it's rather a strong argument against the WK's ability to break it.

I don't see that at all. If we want to say one of Gandalf's sticks were fashioned in Lothlórien, why would something wrought from nature be impossible for WK to break?
I think it's impossible, yes, for WK to wrench Olorin's authority away as a Maia, but in the weak, flawed, flesh of Man it is possible.

On a side note, I really don't believe the Istari came into Middle Earth for the first time wielding staves. Their power was innate.

Just like Gandalf could only break Saruman's staff after he'd been sent back and empowered as the new White Wizard,

I think the Istari always had potential to usurp authority from themselves, so in the case of their wills to break another's staff, for example, it would not be possible unless one of them transgressed the purpose and responsibility of the Valar and ultimately of Eru. Saruman transgressed divine fiat and was judged accordingly.

Saruman could have easily broken Gandalf's staff at Orthanc. But Saruman is more cunning than to declare himself as having turned to the dark side. Rather he has convinced himself that evil, even Sauron, is really not evil, but a maligned interpretation of good that people have created and are thus ignorant of. And so, maybe his digressions with Gandalf can be negotiated to reach a compromise. Gandalf of course refuses, and so Saruman tortures and tempts his mind by imprisoning him on top of Orthanc.

To the Witch-king, a mere stick wrought from that world would be no trouble to break. It doesn't have any special magic enhancements that could resist him, that I am aware of. If a physical body can be broken, so can a physical object from that same universe. If the WK is neither living or dead, why should he fear breaching natural (physical) authority by breaking its physical product or symbol?

That must have been in the movie. In the book he said nothing of the sort.

Yeah, I was referencing the movie.

Gandalf resurrected being killed a second time by the WK would be much like Jesus dying on the cross a second time after his resurrection.

In all respect, I did say that to some degree there are obvious parallels. The nature of both figures are more parallel than the events that surrounded them.
And of course, it depends on your theology, but some Gnostics, or I should rather say, Pneumatic sects, called by their ancient name-- did in fact believe Jesus would die and resurrect a second time. But that's beside the point, I think

but I just don't see any chance of him prevailing against Gandalf the White.

Not prevailing in what sense? Gandalf's innate divinity had risen, which I think was a separate thing in regards to the incarnation of his second body. It was the same body essentially, just the hair color changed and he was dressed in white with a new walking stick, presumably carved from the Elves? I don't see anything drastically different *physically. if you can point me to a text, I will be obliged to concur.

So not to hold forth any false modesty, it really is true that I am less knowledgeable and more hazy on the books than the movies. The movies I have down to a tee, having watched them for the umpteenth time, plus every little nook and cranny of the EE.

Thanks for responding to my rambling.

Best Regards

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I would like to address the theological comparison of Gandalf with Jesus Christ briefly. We do need the Silmarillion for this, since there is no reference to the nature of Eru, Valar, and Maiar in LotR.

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.

There may be some parallels between Gandalf and Christ - after all, this is a fantasy world, and things are different there. However, the fact that Gandalf is a created being is enough to refute any direct comparison. He is not even one of the higher group of Ainur, the Valar, but is a servant to them.

The Bible tells incidents of angels who came to earth in human form to fulfil tasks there - bringing messages, for the most part. Their becoming flesh is necessary so that their appearance will not put fear into the hearts of their human listeners. This parallels Gandalf's incarnation.

The resurrection aspect of Gandalf's life can be compared to that of human persons in the Bible who were resurrected by God to fulfil their purpose in life. Resurrection is not theologically limited to God Himself, though it can only be achieved by his power.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Not prevailing in what sense? Gandalf's innate divinity had risen, which I think was a separate thing in regards to the incarnation of his second body. It was the same body essentially, just the hair color changed and he was dressed in white with a new walking stick, presumably carved from the Elves? I don't see anything drastically different *physically. if you can point me to a text, I will be obliged to concur.

"Indeed my friends, none of you has any weapon that could hurt me." This is what Gandalf tells Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli when they first meet him as Gandalf the White in Fangorn. Of course, their weapons are rendered absolutely useless.

When Gwahir the Windlord picks up Gandalf from the mountain, he tells the wizard, "A burden you have been...but not so now. Light as a swan's feather in my claw you are. The sun shines through you."

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. As he stated, he was sent back "for a brief time, until my task was done."

[Mugwump]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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. As he stated, he was sent back "for a brief time, until my task was done."

Perhaps Tolkien gave us only an abbreviated version of what Gandalf said. Perhaps he actually said that he was sent back "for a brief time, until my task was done, at which time -- about the middle of the third movie, I expect -- I will diminish, becoming much less wise and powerful in order to make the future King of Gondor seem more heroic in comparison."

[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.