Gennae'us (Ftvpaloc, i. e. h'gh-bom, but v. r. Ft- vtoiS), apparently given (2 Mace, xii, 2) as the name of the father of the Syrian general Apollonius (q. v.) ; but perhaps it is a mere epithet.
Gennath (Vtwd^, apparentlj' for the Chald. r|a or NPiJ, garden, q. d. "garden-gate;" perhaps [as Schwarz suggests, Palest, p. 254] from the " rose-gar- den," CI"!! r|i*, mentioned in the Talmud [J/aoser. ii, 5] as lying west of the Temple mount), the name, according to Josephus (Tlor, v, 4, 2), of one of the gates of Jerusalem, important as mainly determining the course of the second wall, which has been greatly disputed. See Calvary. His account is as follows: "But the second (wall), while it had its beginning from that gate which they called '(iennath,' which belonged to the first wall, j'et encircling onlj' the northern slope [or quarter], reached as far as Antonia" (To ?'( vtvTipov T))v ph' ((px>)i' "^" 7ri'\r]Q tlxtv, i]v Vtvi'u^ tKciXovi', Tov Tfoiorov T(i\oiHj ovrrav, kvkKov- fitvov cl TO TvpocntpKTiof K\ipa poi'ov ai'yti /'fX,ot r(/C 'Av-Mviac) ; from which, together with the context, the following conclusions are certain : (1.) The gate in question formed jiart of the first wall that skirted the northern Ijtow of JNlount Zion, for the second wall must have started from this quarter, since it ran northward, and lay between the first and the third wall on the same side of the city. (2.) It was situated at some point cast of the tower Hippicus, which formed the common
GENNESAR
787
GENNESARET
starting-point of both the other walls, but not of this; its dlstunce from this to\.'er is the chief matter of dis- agreement l>et\veen tojwgraphers ; the following con- siderations will serve to show that it was considerable : [1.] There were two other adjacent towers, not verj- far from each other, along the same wall, and the gate must have been beyond them all, as they would have been useless for defense if inclosed within the second wall ; nor does the precipitous rock here admit egress for some distance. [2.] Several indications of the junc- tion of the walls, if not of the gate in question itself, have been discovered about 1000 feet east of the pres- ent Jaffa gate (Williams, //o/// C«V//, i, Append, p. 83 sq.); this would make the line of the second wall cor- respond verj' nearly to the modern division between the Ciiristian and Mohammedan quarters. The only objection of any force against this location of the gate, and consequently of the wall in question, is that it brings the latter upon the side of a descent, where no engineer would think of constructing a mural defence, as it would be commanded by the higher ground out- side. On the other hand, the hill is not so steep as is implied in this argument ; there is no evidence that the wall here was erected specially because the nature of the ground afforded a peculiai'ly favoralile situation, but simply to include the existing buildings; nor would the matter l)e much improved by carrying the wall a little further up the same general shelving wedge of land, which here extends indefinitely west- ward. Moreover, the weakness of the second wall at this point may have been the reason for the construc- tion of the three impregnable towers expressly so as to flank it. See JERUs.i.LE.M.
Genne'sar, THE water of (to vSojp Fevvriaup), a place where Jonathan Maccabeus encamped on his way to attack the forces of Demetrius at Kadesh (1 Maec. xi, GT) ; doubtless the Luke Gennes.vret (q. v.\
Geiines'aret [r/ pron. hard] (rtvi'i]i7apir), the Greek fiu-m of the lake (Luke v, 1) and plain (Matt, xiv, ?A ; iMark vi, 53), invariably found in the N. T. in place of the Gennesar {rti'viirrdo} of the Apocry- pha (1 Mace, xi, G7), and usually also of Josephus (War, iii, 10, 7, 8). In the Talmudical writings and Targums we always find the latter form Hebraized 'lOI'^S, Ginesar' , as an equivalent of r/liS, Kinne'- reth or Ciiixneketh (Lightfoot, Works, ii, 222); from which accordingly it has usually been derived, by an interchange of 3 for D, and the insertion of D ; al- though others derive it from X^'i, a vallej', and "I'SS a shoot or flower, as if i. q. "the vale of flowers" (.Je- rome, 02^p. vii, 103, ed. Migne), or from "|5, a garden, and "Tw\ a prince, as if i. q. "the prince's garden" (Lightfoot, i, 489), or even from Sharon, a fertile vale not far distant (Keland, Pal(est. p. 193, 259).
1. The town. This is variously named in the 0. T. as Cinneretk (or " Chinnereth," Josh, xix, 35), where it is assigned to Naphtali. In later times it was called Genusar ("lOi:?, Megilla, 6, a), and in the Talmudic period one Jonathan bcn-Charsa was from there (7*0- siphta Kelini, s. f.). At the time of Farchi (beginning of the 14th century) it was still in existence ; doubt- less the ruins Gansur\ still found at the present day one hour north-west of Tubariyeh, according to Furst (Ifeb. Lex. p. G76, a), although no modern map lays it down. See Cinneretii.
2. The district (N. T. yi'i, land), named from its 6a- sin-Wka form (like the body of a "l"i3, or lyre). This was a small region of Galilee, on the western shore of the lake, visited liy Christ on his way (southward along the lake) to Capernaum (:Matt. xiv, 3.5, 3G). It is described by Josephus (War, iii, 10, 8) as about four miles in length and three in breadtli, and as distin- guished for its fertility and beauty. The Talmud also (Berak. 44) describes the luxuriant growth of this low-