Lew Wallace was a fan of the writings of Sir Walter Scott (Ivanhoe, Marmion, etc)- well, aren't we all- and Jane Porter (The Scottish Chiefs) and was in part inspired by their works to take up writing historical fiction. He was also very much an admirer of Alexandre Dumas' The Count Of Monte Cristo, echoes of which can be seen in Ben Hur... the unjustly accused & convicted man who is imprisoned for years, then becomes wealthy and comes back for revenge. Wallace was no doubt also influenced by his experiences in the American Civil War, during which he became a Major General in the Union Army.
I have in past posts discussed a few of the film adaptations of the novel- the 1925 movie, the 1953 version, and the ghastly 2016 disaster. I have not, however, done a review of the book, and I'm not going to do a full one now, because it would take more time than I have to spend at the moment to go into depth with it. What I will do is talk a bit about the differences between the novel and the movies, particularly the best one- the 1953 Charlton Heston picture. We will not speak of the 2016 travesty, as there is no comparison to be made between that and even the other film adaptations, let alone the book.
I have often remarked that while I adore the 1953 film, I would not be adverse to seeing a movie which adhered more closely to the novel; a lot- by necessity- is left out of the existing adaptations. It would probably have to be a miniseries to handle all of the storylines with any degree of success. But I don't want one made at present time, because Hollywood currently seems unable to produce anything but crap.... case in point: the 2016 movie. As bad as modern day film studios are at producing any kind of story worth watching, they're a thousand times worse with Biblical epics. There are many reasons for this: complete ignorance of the Bible and disdain for the potential audience, historical illiteracy (I'm not ruling out actual illiteracy) and a compulsive need to fill the narrative and characters with modern day sensibilities and behaviours... to name a few. I mean, can you image what they would do with the character of sweet little Esther? By the end of it, she'd probably be leading a rebel force against the Roman Empire and have rejected Ben Hur to run off with Tirzah instead. The absolute state of things. I am, however, wandering off the topic of the differences between the movie and the book, so *SPOILER WARNING* if you haven't read Ben Hur... though, since the book's been on the market for over 140 years, one shouldn't be necessary.
To begin with, Ben Hur: A Tale Of The Christ is divided into 8 parts, or books. The first part- as the movie briefly shows- deals with Mary and Joseph going to Bethlehem for the census and also introduces us to the Magi- Balthasar (an Egyptian), Melchior (a Hindu), and Gaspar (a Greek) who have been brought together through their study of the signs and scriptures, and are following a bright star to the region where they search for the child prophesied to be the King of the Jews. They run afoul of Herod in the process, with disastrous results for the people of Bethlehem.
Book Two is where we meet young Judah Ben Hur; as in the film, he and Messala are childhood friends, but they are both still boys when Messala is sent to Rome for 5 years of training; he returns when the two are teenagers. This is unlike the movie, where they are considerably older. Messala does indeed return full of arrogance and pride, sure of Rome's superiority, and now looks down on his former Jewish friend, mocking Judah and his faith. The two become estranged.
As in the film, disaster strikes when a tile from the Hur roof falls and hits the passing Governor Gratus. In the film, it is Tirzah who accidentally knocks the tile, with Judah taking the blame; in the book, the loose tile is under Ben Hur's hand when it falls. The rest of this event proceeds more or less in the same manner: Judah is betrayed by Messala to the authorities and he and his mother and sister are arrested. He is sent to be a galley slave on a Roman warship while his mother and Tirzah are imprisoned in the Fortress of Antonia. All of the Hur lands are confiscated by Rome, which leads us to one major plot change: Simonides and Esther. In the 1953 film, Simonides brings Esther to the house of Hur to receive permission from Judah for her to marry, cue the tender romantic scene between Ben Hur and Esther. In the novel however, Simonides, based in Antioch, manages the Hur properties and money there and he and Judah have never met in person. He does not bring Esther to Jerusalem and she's not betrothed; indeed, she would only be a child at the time. Simonides is, as shown in the movie, tortured by the Roman authorities to try to make him give up where all the Hur wealth is, which he refuses to do, being left as a cripple because of it. Meanwhile, in both book and film, while on his forced march to the galleys Judah passes through Nazareth where a young carpenter gives him water to drink and a will to survive. He vows to one day return and seek vengeance against the Romans.