Talk:Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

plot summary

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.
talk) 16:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It's very lengthy for a summary.Parkwells (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As written, this section is not a summary - too lengthy; too many small details. I can add a shortened summary; just a paragraph or two.Rosalina523 (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I added a short plot summary as the first section of this article and added a new heading - Detailed synopsis - for the lengthy descriptions of each book/part and left that content intact. Suggestions on how to deal with all that uncited detail? Rosalina523 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manger

I don't believe it is correct to state that "animals were kept in mangers". A manger is a long open box or trough -- something that large animals eat out of, not something they live in. With enough straw, it may make a nice little cradle substitute, but it isn't a stable.

Improvement

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

Article Title

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)[reply]

Ben-Hur, this page and disambiguation

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)[reply]

I agree. Since it is where the name came from anyway. Reginmund 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better to leave Ben-Hur as the dab page - unclear if the novel, movie(s) or play are what the majority of people are looking for when they first type "ben-hur" in the search field. Plus the novel's full name "tale of the christ" should be in the title of the article IMO, which free's up "ben-hur" for a dab page. There might be a purist argument for it (novel came first, gets first billing in name space), but pragmatically its better as is. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers?

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)[reply]

No.
talk) 16:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Opera

This would make a cracking opera. Do anyone know of an attempt? Can't believe no-one's tried it.

talk) 16:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

"the Jewish cult leader Jesus"

Whilst not in any real sense wrong, the description of Jesus as a "Jewish cult leader" in the lead section bothers me in a way I can't quite put my finger on. Aside from any other consideration, does the identity of Jesus need any explanation in an article about an overtly Christian book? -- Bobyllib (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a Christian, I take particular offense to this description. Whether you believe Christ was the Messiah or not is irrelevant. In the universe of this novel, He is clearly depicted as such. I believe that the phrasing "Jewish cult leader" should be changed as "cult" gives off strongly negative connotations. (GabrielKings (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)) GabrielKings (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cult" - Noun.
Oxford American dictionary: "A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object : e.g. the cult of St. Olaf." From the Latin "cultus" - "to worship".
Webster"s: "A formal religious veneration : worship; a system of religious beliefs".
Collins: "a specific system of religious worship; devoted attachment to a person, idea, or activity".
Oxford English dictionary: "Attentive care; homage; worship; A system of religious belief; A system of intense religious veneration of a particular person or idea.
talk) 04:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

You know what kind of reaction this is going to generate from certain people, and what kind of connotations people associate with the word "cult", regardless of what Webster says. If you won't accept "foretold Messiah", which is how He is portrayed within, at least accept "religious leader". (GabrielKings (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)) GabrielKings (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielKings (talk • contribs)

I strongly agree that "cult leader" is purposely inflammatory and derogatory. It has no place in this article. Usage of "cult leader" is NOT neutral POV. It should be changed to religious leader. KPalicz (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not purposely inflammatory and Spacini is not alone in thinking it is undiscussed vandalism. Is it not a consensus. He has said numerously that if editors wish to put another case with sources, they are very welcome.
The novel charts the development of the early followers of of the new Jewish leader Jesus, from a small dedicated, devoted band of people - much before it became popular, numerous or well known. See above
Oxford American dictionary: "A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object : e.g. the cult of St. Olaf." From the Latin "cultus" - "to worship".
Webster"s: "A formal religious veneration : worship; a system of religious beliefs".
Collins: "a specific system of religious worship; devoted attachment to a person, idea, or activity".
Oxford English dictionary: "Attentive care; homage; worship; A system of religious belief; A system of intense religious veneration of a particular person or idea.
Our own Wikipedia page
talk) 02:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No, there is only one editor here who wants to use the word cult. The same editor who initially added cult to the article and the same who has reverted it every time. Everyone else who has participated here has said the term is inflammatory and inaccurate. You are on a one-man quest to include cult leader. You contend that all small religious movements start as cults. All religious movements would then, under this definition, begin as cults. Yet looking through Wikipedia you see no mention of "cult" on the pages of
Buddha, John Westley, Muhammad, Laozi or Confucius. In fact, the Wikipedia article on Jesus
also does not refer to him as a cult leader. For each of the above religious leaders there are descriptions of how they started spreading their message that would have been, based on your argument, appropriate to use the term cult. Yet you don't see it anywhere. Nowhere except here on the Ben Hur page. You are very much out of step with Wikipedia on insisting upon this.

Also if you are going to go with dictionary definitions:

Merriam-Webster: "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherent"
The Free Dictionary: "A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."
dictionary.com: "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

We could argue over (and surely you will) which definitions are most appropriate for the term, but doesn't the very fact that the term is used in very different and sometimes incendiary ways indicate that the term does a poor job of conveying what you claim to want to convey? If *most* people reading that term think of kool-aid and Nikes, then the term is misleading and inaccurate. KPalicz (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased that this discussion has been, for the most part, very civil. It is apparent that consensus will not be reached as long as those who take a modern approach to the word "cult" (as noted in the comment by KPalicz) and the historical use of the term take exception, even though being out of step with traditional Jewish teaching and law is precisely what got Jesus in trouble with Jewish authorities. It's also apparent that those who are taking exception to the use of the term have probably not read the novel and are not understanding the literary device that Wallace used to parallel the lives of the two men: one who seeks a militant/revengeful path and one who seeks a peaceful path. (It's important to note that in the Hebrew translations of Ben-Hur, Jesus is omitted entirely and Judah Ben-Hur is portrayed as a Zionist hero.) I have made an edit to the contentious line that I hope will satisfy both parties. Spacini (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IKPalicz, you seem puzzling certain what "most people think". I would that I had such omniscient powers. Looking at the article history you will see that it was I that did an article re-write around May 28-30 2010. It was my original phrasing, coming out of the research in the sources given. I'd be a little careful of your strident claims.
Thank you for your comments, Spacini, and your approach. Yes, civilised discussion is the usually the way forward. I am happy with your edit. Article contributors, WP has a process and it works. Please note.
talk) 18:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you Spacini, that edit will work. I believe that is how it used to be actually. Not sure why it was changed. KPalicz (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is the orginal page before re-working. Best wishes
talk) 18:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Too close to verbatim transcription/plagarism

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)[reply]

I have checked and re-written sections. Thanks for the heads up.
talk) 01:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]

Reference to Gore Vital's screenplay adaptation

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)[reply]

Judah and Ben Hur

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)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

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)[reply]

Most Influential?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hail Caesar

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)[reply]

Note: Hail, Caesar! discusses the 1959 film with sources under Costume design. —CalendulaAsteraceae (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben-Hur:_A_Tale_of_the_Christ&oldid=1194823008"