Talk:Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ

message: I notice the plot summary ends at the chariot race, which is only the middle of the book. Someone who has access to a copy of the book might look into finishing up the summary. J. Passepartout
:: Done. Spanglej (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very lengthy for a summary.Parkwells (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Once there is shortened summary. . . what to do with the pages of detail in the plot section that are already provided? None of them are cited.Rosalina523 (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: plot summary

message: This article is good but a ==Literary significance & criticism== section would be helpful. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement

message: Since it is the official title of the book, maybe the title of this article should be Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ instead of Ben-Hur (novel)
:Absolutely. No question about it. Besides, much better than having "(novel)" in the title. -- Stbalbach 02:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title 

message: I'm tempted to have Ben-Hur redirect here, add an adaptations section to this document and create a real dab page.  But I'm not sure its entirely necessary.  Any thoughts? (John User:Jwy talk) 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben-Hur, this page and disambiguation 

message: They were both handsome, and, at first glance, would have been pronounced brothers. Both had hair and eyes black; their faces were deeply browned; and, sitting, they seemed of a size proper for the difference in their ages.
(...)
And Drusus asked, "Did you ever see one Quintus Arrius?" "The duumvir?" "No--his son?" "I knew not he had a son." "Well, it is nothing," Drusus added, indifferently; "only, my Messala, Pollux was not more like Castor than Arrius is like thee." The remark had the effect of a signal: twenty voices took it up. "True, true! His eyes--his face," they cried. "What!" answered one, disgusted. "Messala is a Roman; Arrius is a Jew."
I have a question concerning the likeness between Judah and Messala. Is it possible that they were really brothers?--80.141.222.36 (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Spanglej (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brothers? 

message: This would make a cracking opera. Do anyone know of an attempt? Can't believe no-one's tried it. Spanglej (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Opera

message: Some sections of this article are too close to verbatim transcriptions of other writing on the novel elsewhere. The section on Wallace's beliefs, for instance, needs to be re-written. Compare:
This article:
"There were many rumors about Wallace’s faith. It was said he was an atheist and had gone to the Holy Land to disprove the existence of Christ. To dispel these, Wallace stated in his autobiography[6] “In the very beginning, before distractions overtake me, I wish to say that I believe absolutely in the Christian conception of God. As far as it goes, this confession is broad and unqualified, and it ought and would be sufficient were it not that books of mine—Ben-Hur and The Prince of India—have led many persons to speculate concerning my creed .... I am not a member of any church or denomination, nor have I ever been. Not that churches are objectionable to me, but simply because my freedom is enjoyable, and I do not think myself good enough to be a communicant.”[4]
The article in Humanities (cited by the wiki page):
"There were so many rumors about Wallace’s faith—that he was an atheist or that he had gone to the Holy Land to disprove the existence of Christ—he felt it necessary to introduce his autobiography by dispelling them. “In the very beginning, before distractions overtake me, I wish to say that I believe absolutely in the Christian conception of God. As far as it goes, this confession is broad and unqualified, and it ought and would be sufficient were it not that books of mine—Ben-Hur and The Prince of India—have led many persons to speculate concerning my creed. . . . I am not a member of any church or denomination, nor have I ever been. Not that churches are objectionable to me, but simply because my freedom is enjoyable, and I do not think myself good enough to be a communicant.”
We need to either quote the article directly or write this in our own words. 
There may also be other sections written this way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.216.19 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked and re-written sections. Thanks for the heads up. Span (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through the article an added citations for content as well as direct quotes from the references; and updated the reference/notes sections accordingly.Rosalina523 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too close to verbatim transcription/plagarism 

message: The source cited in the 1959 film adaption contains no reference to Gore Vidal or his role in writing the screenplay. Since this relates more to the film adaptation than the book, should this content be deleted, it isn't correctly cited, or moved to the 1959 film's article/talk pages? Other suggestions on handling this?Rosalina523 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Gore Vital's screenplay adaptation

message: In the detailed plot summary of the book's eight parts, the eponymous character is referred to as Judah for the first seven, and then, curiously, becomes Ben Hur for the eighth. Am is missing something here, or is this just an editing oversight? Myles325a (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judah and Ben Hur 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ben-Hur which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: In the heading, this book is called "the most influential Christian book of the nineteenth century".  Most influential by whom?  The link doesn't seem to lead anywhere, and the "quote" doesn't attribute the statement of to any person who states as much.  Considering that the Bible itself is considered a book, regardless of what century, would it not remain the most influential book of Christianity?RTShadow (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible is a book, but not one of the 19th century, but one of many centuries with the late 1st or early 2nd being the latest (and the collection done in the fourth). The bigger problem is: influential in what respect? Judging from an admittedly shallow basis (from my guesses about the book from seeing the well-known movie from the 1950s), I'd fancy that Quo vadis beats it on many counts, including, possibly, influence (and, on that shallow basis: certainly both Christian spirit and literary excellence). And that is a book from the 19th century.--2001:A61:260C:C01:F4D6:38EA:FCED:A4D4 (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Influential?

message: No mention that Hail Caesar sends up the film(s) and concept? Seems to be a Jewish response to the story, albeit a bit of a nasty one in some ways, but the main film within a film which is being made in it is "Hail Caesar: A Tale of the Christ". There are of course many themes in the film, but a cynical Jewish view of Christians and Gentiles does permeate large parts of it, and is most clearly stated by one of the rabbis in it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:141E:BF4E:1:2:CF55:966A (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Hail, Caesar! discusses the 1959 film with sources under Costume design. —CalendulaAsteraceae (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hail Caesar