I imagined the Jews to mean: "he has evidently used the words [Greek: ho pataer mou]--not in the sense in which all good men may use them, but--in a literal sense, because by the words that followed, [Greek: ergazetai, kago ergazomai], he makes himself equal to God." To justify these words seemed to me to be the purport of Christ's reply.
Chap.II.1.p.

34.
[Greek: (Philon)--peri men oun ta theia kai patria mathaemata, poson te kai paelikon eisenaenektai ponon, ergo pasi daelos kai peri ta philosopha de kai eleutheria taes exothen paideias oios tis aen, ouden dei legein hoti kai malista taen kata Platona kai Pythagoran ezaelokos agogaen, dienegken apantas tous kath' heauton, historeitai].
Euseb.Hist.II.

4.
Philo's acquaintance with the doctrines of the heathens was known only by historical report to Eusebius; while the writings of Philo displayed his knowledge in the religion of the Jews.
Strange comment.

Might I not, after having spoken of Dun Scotus's works, say;--"he is reported to have surpassed all his contemporaries in subtlety of logic:"-- yet still mean no other works than those before mentioned?
Are not Philo's works full of, crowded with, Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy?
Eusebius knew from his works that he was a great Platonic scholar; but that he was greater than any other man of his age, he could only learn from report or history.

That Virgil is a great poet I know from his poems; but that he was the greatest of the Augustan age, I must learn from Quinctilian and others.
Ib.p.