'Ben-Hur' brings up all sorts of associations when we hear it in conversation: perhaps most famously the 1959 film adaptation that featured Charlton Heston as the eponymous hero. Due to this later cinematic adaptation we are disinclined to think about the original novel by Lew Wallace - who was also less famously - indirectly responsible for the death of the famous anti-Semitic Wild West outlaw Billy the Kid. (1)
'Ben-Hur' is still commonly read to this day by Christians - as well as non-believers - as it is a classic of Christian literary achievement and to be fair to Wallace: it is well-written romp of a story, but hopelessly inaccurate historically-speaking. Indeed the genesis of 'Ben-Hur' was Wallace's meeting with noted American agnostic and self-styled 'infidel' Colonel Robert Ingersoll (on whose virulent anti-jewish views I will write a future article): when Wallace realised how little he knew about - and how unable he was to defend - his own faith.
The odd thing about 'Ben-Hur' is that it is usually taken as being highly complimentary in regards to the jews, but having actually read it: I disagree.
Superficially the novel seems philo-Semitic as its eponymous hero finds himself wrecked on a bleak unforgiving foreign shores by the cruel winds of fate and in truth there is a case for suggesting it was intended as much. We see the 'simplicity' of the common people among the jews lionized, (2) the bravery and self-sacrifice of Hur in rescuing the Roman tribune Arrius (3) and that jews 'invented' monotheism and are in 'love within the law' (i.e., the Torah) praised. (4)
Further we see the Roman tribune Arrius state that he no longer regards jews as uncivilized barbarians (5) (although non-Roman Europeans are still very much regarded as such) (6), while the 'ancient origin' of the jews as well as their racial purity is held to be the source of their superiority to gentiles (7) and the original genius behind Greek philosophy is also alleged to be the jews (8) (with the implication that the Greeks are mere thieves and the direct statement that jewish philosophy is superior to Greek philosophy). (9) Judaism is thus held to be superior to all other religions (10) with Hinduism and Buddhism specifically cited. (11)
This sounds like a rock-solid case that 'Ben-Hur' is a philo-Semitic novel now: doesn't it?
Well the problem is that while these pro-jewish sentiments are included in it. There are also a lot of other comments that have a tendency to get missed: not least the statement that the Virgin Mary had blonde hair and blue eyes, (12) while Jesus had light brown hair and blue eyes. (13)
This leads nicely into the fact that Wallace specifically singles the jews out as being responsible for the trial and execution of Jesus. (14) This alone should indicate to the reader that Wallace's views on the jews - as espoused in 'Ben-Hur' - are actually less than complimentary.
Demonstrating this is remarkably easy by pointing out that 'Ben-Hur' states that jewish belief in their superiority over every other people is intrinsic to Judaism. (15) This leads to the jewish belief in the importance of their own racial purity, (16) which they guard with a fanaticism bordering on zealotry (17) and this leads to their inveterate hatred of gentiles (specifically Romans in this particular case). (18)
Belief in their own superiority to gentiles is derived from the jewish sense of inferiority that Rome has conquered and placed the known world in their thrall, while the jews believe it is they who should rule it not the Romans. (19) The jews - with an implicit understanding of the realities of their situation - see that they cannot win against Rome on their own as they currently stand - although this doesn't stop the Zealots cowardly murdering isolated non-jews for the 'glory of Yahweh' - (20) and look to the arrival of the Messiah to make them invincible and be at the forefront of an orgy of murder across the globe (21) in which all non-jews who oppose them will be killed in revenge for alleged 'oppression' the jews have suffered at their hands. (22)
The reason why the jews are incapable of opposing Rome - aside from military good sense - is that the jews tend to be either shepherds (23) or merchants: (24) thus don't make good soldiers as a rule. We are told that the jews have cornered the market in supplying the Roman army with goods and services, (25) that jewish wealth is based almost solely on trade with non-jews, (26) that the jews have an intricate network of international connections and trading partners, (27) and that jews are in general very animated in their business dealings and make an unholy racket when undertaking them. (28)
This theme of a distinct whiff of unholiness is given its fullest expression when we read that jews have an unholy love of money. (29) Thus it is hardly surprising when jewish merchants are nearly always money-lenders as well as selling goods and services in the normal way (30) and are congenial white-collar criminals who steal everything they possibly can from anyone and everyone (including other jews) (31) but particularly enjoy thieving from Romans. (32)
The jewish obsession with money and their ability to access significant stores of it leads in 'Ben-Hur' to their bribing the Roman authorities to change policies they don't like. (33) Even though they despise the Romans: the jews don't sneer at them nearly as much as they do the Arabs and Egyptians (34) as evinced by Hur referring to his Egyptian nursemaid Amrah (who is a slave) as being (in effect) a godless subhuman. (35) The jews simply don't dare openly oppose the Romans unless they have a significant advantage in numbers and terrain (36) while the zealots only go around assassinating Romans in similar conditions as well (37) rather than fighting them openly and man-to-man.
All this indicates - as we are told by 'Ben-Hur' itself - that the jews think in a radically different way to the Romans (38) and in so doing they present themselves as a 'harmless oppressed minority' (which finds a slight echo in the novel at times) (39) when they are not. To the jews of 'Ben-Hur' fact and fantasy are two tightly interwoven concepts to be ruthlessly used, abused and discarded as their fancy takes them in order to achieve their ultimate objective of world domination in the name of Yahweh.
But then how are we to reconcile these two sides of the novel?
'Ben-Hur' seems to present the jews in a positive light, but yet as we have seen they are presented extremely negatively in the majority of their mentions in the novel.
This seeming contradiction in terms is easily resolved when we understand that Wallace wrote 'Ben-Hur' as a way of understanding his own Christian faith and as such he is using the lens of Christian theology to understand the relationship between the jews and Christianity.
In other words: Wallace has to lionize the jews as being 'ancient', 'simple-minded and vigorous', 'ahead of their time', 'the origin of philosophy' because what he is actually describing in the Judaism of the time is the predecessor religion to Christianity. As such then he has to view Judaism of the pre-Christian past as being a positive thing since this Judaism is the religion of the Israelites and the jews are their descendants as well as the people of the Christ.
Therefore in order to validate the Old Testament and the supersession from the Old to the New Testament (and specifically the meaning and application of the concept of 'Israel'): Wallace has to present the jews of the Old Testament in a positive light. When we look back at the positive passages in 'Ben-Hur' in relation to the jews: it is immediately obvious that these are references to the Israelites of the Old Testament who Wallace's religious beliefs require him to recognize as being the forerunners of Christians.
However when we turn to Wallace's negative commentary on jews: this doesn't need to reflect Wallace's Christian beliefs at all, because it is quite possible for Christians to be philo-Semitic - both historically and currently - and they don't have to be anti-jewish in the slightest. Yet Wallace - as we have seen - chooses to be fairly venomous in his comments in relation to jews in 'Ben-Hur' and in so doing suggests that his own beliefs about jews were less than complimentary (hence the indirect reference to Ulysses Grant's comment about jewish carpetbaggers in the novel among other things).
Thus we can see that 'Ben-Hur' - the premier Christian novel of all time - is decidedly anti-jewish in nature and also more importantly suggests that Lew Wallace held anti-jewish views of some kind.
References
(1) On this and Billy the Kid's views on jews please the following article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/billy-the-kid-and-the-jews
(2) Lew Wallace, 1985, 'Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ', 1st Edition, Barbour: Westwood, pp.47-48
(3) Ibid., pp. 138-144
(4) Ibid., pp. 180-181
(5) Ibid., p. 147
(6) Ibid., pp. 140; 337-338
(7) Ibid., pp. 88-89; 146-147
(8) Ibid., pp. 92-96
(9) Ibid., pp. 10-11
(10) Ibid., p. 238
(11) Ibid., pp. 14-16
(12) Ibid., pp. 35-36; 42
(13) Ibid., pp. 112; 437
(14) Ibid., pp. 482-483
(15) Ibid., p. 443
(16) Ibid., pp. 28; 84
(17) Ibid., pp. 27-28
(18) Ibid., pp. 227; 314; 379; 451
(19) Ibid., p. 361
(20) Ibid., pp. 34-36
(21) Ibid., pp. 247-248; 361
(22) Ibid., pp. 170; 199; 329
(23) Ibid., pp. 47-48
(24) Ibid., p. 101
(25) Ibid., p. 307
(26) Ibid., p. 467
(27) Ibid., p. 52
(28) Ibid., pp. 24-27
(29) Ibid., p. 388
(30) Ibid., pp. 154; 282
(31) Ibid., pp. 158-161; 207-208
(32) Ibid., p. 195
(33) Ibid., p. 343
(34) Ibid., p. 100
(35) Ibid., pp. 100-101
(36) Ibid., pp. 104-105
(37) Ibid., pp. 34-36
(38) Ibid., p. 79
(39) Ibid., pp. 67-70; 363-364