4. The TITLE of the book is somewhat of a puzzle. Sichardus calls it Philonis Judaei antiquitatum Biblicarum liber, the Fulda catalogue (and the label on the Fulda MS.) Philonis antiquitatum liber; a late title in the same MS. is: libri Philonis iudei de initio mundi; P has a title of cent. XV.: Philo iudeus de successione generationum veteris testamenti; R, in the colophon: "ystoria Philonis ab initio mundi usque ad David regem" (so also two at least of the Munich M SS.); Trithemius has De generationis successu. Sixtus Senensis has two notices of the book: in the first, which is drawn from Sichardus., he calls it Biblicarum antiquitatum liber; in the second, which depends on some MS., his words are: "In Gen. Cap. 5 de successione generis humani liber unus, continens enarrationem genealogiae seu posteritatis Adae. Liber incipit: Ἀδὰμ ἐγέννησε Adam genuit
tres filios." The two Greek words I take to be no more than a re-translation from Latin. The MS. V has no title at all.
Thus we have authority for three names. The first, Biblicarum antiquitatum, I think, must be in part due to Sichardus; the epithet "Biblicarum" savours to my mind of the Renaissance, and has no certain MS. attestation. "Antiquitatum" (which is as old as cent. XIV.) is probably due to a recollection of Josephus's great work, the Jewish Antiquities. The other name, de successione generationum or the like, has rather better attestation, and: Historia ab initio mundi, etc. (if original in the Munich MSS.) the oldest of all. I can hardly believe, however, that any of them are original; it seems more probable that some Biblical name was prefixed to the book when it was first issued. Rather out of respect to the first editor than for any better reason I have retained the title Biblical Antiquities, under which the text was introduced to the modern world.
The ATTRIBUTION TO PHILO I regard as due to the accident that the text was transmitted in company with genuine Philonic writings. 1 Certainly, if the Antiquities had come down to us by themselves, no one in his senses could have thought of connecting them with Philo; unless, indeed, knowing of but two Jewish authors, Philo and Josephus, he assumed that, since one had written a history of the Jews, the other must needs have followed suit.