Talk:Cenacle

Added refimprove flag
I added the ref improve flag to the top of the article because of the lack of references in all but one section. Jason3777 (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'have add three refs and now all section are covered with refs. Note: in the history section all is taken from the Article of Biblical Archaeology Review ((Bargil Pixner)) referred to in note 8. A ntv (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the whole building called
I will bring some sources on the name here:



Onceinawhile (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see any clear answer in the sources I hav to hand. Zerotalk 01:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Upper Room Suspicions and the Mythology of Today
I suspect, though I do not know, all Cenacle, or popularly known Upper Room, incidents occurring in Jerusalem are not historical but are instead fictional theological constructions established by the emerging Christian community. I base this on the absence of stories establishing the ownership of this (two level?) residence and the necessary meal preparations in the New Testament. Also Jesus' prediction of Judas' betrayal (Matthew 26:23-25) and as earlier stated the prediction, made by Jesus during the Last Supper that Peter would deny and disown him, appearing in the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark , the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John. both are most likely Vaticinium ex eventu. The Incredulity of Thomas episode related in (John 20:24-29) though not in the other three synoptic Gospels (Thomas WIMPS OUT and NEVER does physically examine Jesus' wounds fulfilling his vow) and the Pentecost miracles, the rushing wind (the breath of Yahweh ), the cloven tongues of fire, and the ability to speak in other languages (Acts 2:1-12) are also most unlikely historical incidents. Instead they are fictional theological constructions established by the emerging Christian community. The addition of predictions, miracles, magic add wonder and mystery to stories and make them more memorable. Some say science fiction is the mythology of today. As a fan of fantasy and fiction I propose these too should be added to the mythology, Christology, of today. Miistermagico (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not use Wikipedia talk pages to discuss your own theories. The only content acceptable here is discussion of article improvement based on reliable published sources. Zerotalk 07:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"David's Tomb" and "Cenacle" belong together
"David's Tomb" and "Cenacle" ("upper room" of the Last Supper) belong together, as they are both closely intertwined Christian traditions housed in the same building, one above the other, and the articles are dealing with the building, its history and the associated traditions. Separating them is non-academic and creates a big headache, leading to unnecessary repetitions and the propagation of superficial popular narratives. Please contribute to the discussion on the "David's Tomb" talk-page, here. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Cenacle and Tomb: nothing sorted out
1. I don't understand why the merger (see above) was declined. All but one of several comments were in favour. Just because the discussion died down? Is there such a criterion? I have a life!

2. When did the "Tomb of David" tradition emerge? Do we know? Is "the 10th-century Vita Constantini" the first source? Nothing earlier, from the Byzantine period? I wonder.

3. Any explanation for why the two sites were placed in the same building? The disciple who offered his upper room for the Last Supper, a Jew, most certainly didn't live in a 2-storey tomb, so it made no sense to anyone who a) had read the Old and New Testaments, and b) knew the first thing about Jewish purity laws re. graves. I suppose theology played a part ("the new king"), and/or maybe ecclesiastical economy (more pilgrimage sites under one roof), but I'm a cynical heathen.

4. What is known about the sarcophagus? The current text seems to be BS.


 * The "Tomb of King David"
 * While the term Cenacle refers only to the Upper Room, a niche located on the lower level of the same building is associated by tradition with the burial site of King David, marked by a large cenotaph-sarcophagus first reported seen by 12th-century Crusaders,..."

Dubious. As far as I know, the sarcophagus is dated to the C12, so it was placed there by the Crusaders, not "first reported seen" by them. Source? Certainly not Vita Constantini, or is it?


 * ... but earlier mentioned in the 10th-century Vita Constantini.

5. What C10 vita is that, I only know of the contemporary, i.e. C4 one; mistake, or did anyone write a vita 600 years later?

6. What is allegedly mentioned in this Vita Constantini, the tomb site as such, a funeral monument, a bldg, what? A link would greatly help, or at least some more details. "Vita Constantini 11" - great. Is 11 his shoe size or what? Arminden (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)