Questioning the Bible

Watching Waiting for Godot was a very different experience from the one I had while reading the play. Watching certain details and listening to specific parts of the conversation between Vladimir and Estragon made me notice things I had ignored before.

After reading the play, I hardly remembered or even gave importance to the beginning of the story. However, watching the movie made this initial scene a lot more relevant in my afterthoughts. For example, I had not realized the importance of Didi’s hat; the way in which he takes it off and examines it after certain thoughts. I had also forgotten the fact that Didi and Gogo make reference to the past; they talk about how they “were” and where they had “traveled” as if some unspoken event had changed the nature of their lives. Another thing that popped up to me was Didi’s frightfulness towards dreams. Nevertheless, what surprised me the most was how Didi straightforwardly questioned the Bible. To me, the most concerning of these realizations is the latter. 

I remember reading something about Vladimir and Estragon making some vague allusion to God and perhaps a Biblical name. Nonetheless, watching the movie made me realize that these references were not vague at all. In fact, Didi is pretty straightforward and wonders, or rather challenges, why only one of the four gospels talks about a thief being saved. Moreover, Didi questions why it is that we, the human race, believe that single gospel and not the other three. Not only is it one evangelist of four who makes reference to a thief being saved, but two do not even mention thieves and the third says both thieves abused Jesus, or our Savior, because he would not save them. And why is it that men believe the version of that single, merciful evangelist? Is it because we are afraid of believing the opposite? Because following any of the other two versions would slightly change the perception we have had of Jesus for the past 2,000 years. That would not be easy at all. Furthermore, believing on any of the other two versions would either mean that Jesus was crucified alone, that is, it would make the story less credible due to the differing versions, or it would mean Jesus was not actually a Savior or at least not forgiving enough.

The reflection one could make on this trivial piece of the dialogue is everlasting. However, Estragon closes the topic with the most convincing of all conclusions, “People are bloody ignorant apes” (Page 7). As Thomas Gray once put it, “Ignorance is bliss.” The less we dwell on the subject, the happier we will be. I feel a lot more tranquil believing on the sort of established evangelist version we have adapted rather than stressing on the implicit meaning of the other two versions (and the fact that one of the two is supported by half the number of gospels). People are bloody ignorant apes who are willing to believe on what is morally correct regardless of whether it is true or not. However, in this case, being ignorant gave men a reason to live for and a set of morals to follow. Let us not question the Bible too much Didi, we might not find its unveiling secrects very pleasant.