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. 35.

Philo and the author of the Wisdom of Solomon,—­(or rather, perhaps, authors; for the first ten chapters form a complete work of themselves,)—­were both Cabalistico-Platonizing Jews of Alexandria.  As far as, being such, they must agree, so far they do agree; and as widely as such men could differ, do they differ.  Not only the style of the Wisdom of Solomon is generically different from Philo’s,—­so much so that I should deem it a free translation from a Hebrew original,—­but also in all the ‘minutiae’ of traditional history and dogma it contradicts Philo.  Philo attributes the creation of man to angels; and they infused the evil principle through their own imperfections.  In the Book of Wisdom, God created man spotless, and the Devil tempting him occasioned the Fall.  So the whole account of the plagues of Egypt differs as widely as possible, even to absolute contradiction.  The origin of idolatry is explained altogether differently by Philo, and by the Book of Wisdom.  In short, so unsupported is the tradition that many have supposed an elder Philo as the author.  That the second and third chapters allude to Christ is a groundless hypothesis.  The ‘just man’ is called ‘the son of God’, Jehovah, [Greek:  pais Kyrion];—­but Christ’s specific title which was deemed blasphemous by the Jews, was ’Ben Elohim’, [Greek:  uhios tou Theou];—­and the fancy that Philo was a Christian in heart, but dared not openly profess himself such, is too absurd.  Why no traces in his latest work, or those of his middle age?  Why not the least variation in his religious or philosophical creeds in his latter works, written long after the resurrection, from those composed by him before, or a few years after, Christ’s birth?  Some of Philo’s earlier works must have been written when our Lord was in his infancy, or at least boyhood.