The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
... that the church father Origen wrote that some passages in the Bible were intended as purely allegorical and not literal? Source: "Origen saw the "spiritual" interpretation as the deepest and most important meaning of the text[140] and taught that some passages held no literal meaning at all and that their meanings were purely allegorical.[124][136][140] Nonetheless, he stressed that "the passages which are historically true are far more numerous than those which are composed with purely spiritual meanings."[140]"
ALT1:... that the church father Origen drew heavily on the teachings of Plato and tried to harmonize Greek philosophy with Christian teachings? Source: "Origen draws heavily on the teachings of Plato[112] and argues that Christianity and Greek philosophy are not incompatible,[112] and that philosophy contains much that is true and admirable,[112] but that the Bible contains far greater wisdom than anything Greek philosophers could ever grasp.[112]"
Improved to Good Article status by Katolophyromai (talk). Self-nominated at 03:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC).
I'm reviewing this in a moment.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 22:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
A problem does arise when checking the sources for the hook though. The first hook agrees with the sentence in the article ...taught that some passages held no literal meaning at all and that their meanings were purely allegorical. and cites three sources. But only one of these sources explicitly supports the content (Ludlow), and the other two sources do not. So you might want to remove the other two sources from this key sentence in the article. Since the sentence is supported by the Ludlow source, just keep only that one and you should be fine. Unless I have misread the other two sources, in which case, add quotes from the books above please.
As for the ALT1 source, this I cannot access, I would appreciate it if you could just quote a relevant line from the book that supports the hook. Thanks.
Passing the main hook. However, if the main hook contains a quote from the source used, I think the admins will allow the hook to pass much quicker.
ALT 1 is accepted on good faith, since I cannot access the source. Would have appreciated a quote, though.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 22:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Great article, well-written and well-sourced.
Passing the main hook. However, if the main hook contains a quote from the source used, I think the admins will allow the hook to pass much quicker.
ALT 1 is accepted on good faith, since I cannot access the source. Would have appreciated a quote, though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)