Talk:David's Tomb

Mount Zion
We konw now that Mount Zion, the current named so, is not where the Citi of David was. Mount Zion was missnamed by christians, and apparently a replica of David's tomb was built. In this mountain back in the day was Herods quarters and after his death, the Romans regional headquarters. The real Moun Zion was somewhere else in Jerusalem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.155.102.217 (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

You just can't make stuff up and pretend it is true. If there is anything to this then support it with verification. Gingermint (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Support all claims with good research. Also, please use proper grammar. No one will, nor should, take anything seriously that looks like it was written by a semi-trained pet. Gingermint (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

David's Artifacts
All Jewish King's belongings are burned when they die, so I don't understand how this could claim his items were looted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.86.123 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hagia Sion
Someone added "At the end of the Roman period, a synagogue called Hagiya Zion was built..." with citation to a Hebrew book of Menashe Harel. I cannot access that source, but I have checked that Harel's book in English on the same subject (called Golden Jerusalem) does not make any claim about the name of the synagogue. I suspect that the Hebrew source is being misread, for two reasons. One is that I have sources stating that the name of the synagogue is unknown. The other is that "Hagia" is a Greek word Ἁγία meaning "holy" that was commonly used to name churches in the Byzantine period (the most famous being Hagia Sophia in Istanbul) and is most unlikely as the name of a synagogue. The Byzantine church built on Mount Zion, and the large basilica that replaced it, were both called Hagia Sophia. I will leave this for a time to give an opportunity for a quotation or a supporting source to be brought; after that I will delete the name "Hagiya Zion" from the sentence. Zerotalk 03:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The word Hagiyah is as closely rooted to the Hebrew word Hagah meaning to roar, growl, and groan or to meditate as per the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version. These terms the lexicon instructs as sourced strictly from Biblical Prophetic Sermons or speeches in the Old Testament. The Name Haga Zion would be a befitting name for a synagogue being established after the destruction of the second temple, a synagogue that stood for the outcry of Zion or groan of Zion or to meditate on the now diminished state of Zion. The adaption of Hebrew words and earlier sematic words such as Zion being transferred to Christianity is not a new phenomenon. Similarly Hagia Sophia could be interpreted instead of “great Sophia” as “emulate the ideals of Sophia” or “Look Upon Sophia” or even the Lament of Sophia” While this cannot be proven the root term could have just as well begun as Hagah with early Jewish Christians at the site on Mount Zion, as it was the First Church and applied to later church naming in memoriam. At some point the name became associated with Byzantium and not the Hebrew meaning as a growth of both Greek and Roman converts would quite easily be geared towards a word closer to their own language than a Hebrew word lost in antiquity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicassasin (talk • contribs) 16:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So you can't bring any evidence but only your own theory? Zerotalk 22:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact Ἁγία, from ἅγιος, is a Greek word centuries older than any known synagogue. It was used hundreds of times in the Septuagint as the translation of קָדוּשׁ and very many times in the New Testament.  I would like to see any example of a structure whose original Jewish name used this word. Zerotalk 01:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dajani management
Section moved to talk page. There is absolutely NOTHING reliable in it right now: sources either missing, unreliable, or dead links. Unclarities abound: name of the Muslim shrine, name of the family, which part (tomb, Cenacle) is meant where,...


 * The "Ibn Dawood" mosque, a name given by the residents of Jerusalem, was established for Muslim prayers under the patronage of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent and the supervision of al-Shareef Sheikh Ahmad bin Ali Dajani.


 * Management of the site was transferred to the Muslim Palestinian family al-Ashraf Dajani al-Daoudi  family (descendants of the Prophet Mohammad's grandson Hussein) by an edict from Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in 1529. Ahmad Dajani was a Sufi sheikh.  Since then, the Dajani family supervised and maintained this site. As a result, they were given the title of Dahoudi or Dawoodi by the residents of Jerusalem in reference to the King David Tomb complex.

Unless fully reworked, it cannot be reintroduced. Arminden (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal: "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. Arminden (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's more a little odd for a single historical building's history to be split into two different articles based on different fairytales. An exemplary POVFORK. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have long believed the same. The problem is this question I posted a few years ago: Talk:Cenacle?
 * If we can agree on a name, we can easily merge these two articles.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. Really easy it's not because of the quantity of information. Murphy-O'Connor has an article on "Mount Sion" (he prefers that on Zion) with a section on "The Cenacle and the Tomb of David". We can use "Cenacle and Tomb of David" with redirects for "Tomb of David and Cenacle", "Cenacle", "Tomb of David", "Nebi Da'ud" (also with "mosque"?), etc. It seems to me that the Pentecost and Last Supper were the main, and earlier, local traditions, and that the liturgies held there for David and James came next and gave birth to the tomb of David tradition, so the sequence "Cenacle and Tomb of David" is legit from this pov as well. Arminden (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am supportive of this. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible, and the proposed sequence is also A-Z, so works in that way also, other considerations aside. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I have added hatnotes to check if any different views. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I would oppose the merging; there is enough material for each of the two, totally independent traditions, and even the two spaces are physically separated - you don't pass nor see David's Tomb to visit the Cenacle today, and vice-versa, so I don't see a benefit or compelling reason to merge the two topics. Dan Palraz (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)