was not mathematical (i.e. did not necessarily follow from the
perception of the thing perceived or seen), but only moral, and
as the signs were only given to convince the prophet, it follows
that such signs were given according to the opinions and capacity
of each prophet, so that a sign which convince one prophet would
fall far short of convincing another who was imbued with different
opinions.  (31) Therefore the signs varied according to the
individual prophet. 

[2:3] (32) So also did the revelation vary, as we have stated,
according to individual disposition and temperament, and
according to the opinions previously held.

(2:33) It varied according to disposition, in this way: if a
prophet was cheerful, victories, peace, and events which make
men glad, were revealed to him; in that he was naturally more
likely to imagine such things.  (34) If, on the contrary, he
was melancholy, wars, massacres, and calamities were revealed;
and so, according as a prophet was merciful, gentle, quick to
anger, or severe, he was more fitted for one kind of revelation
than another. (35) It varied according to the temper of
imagination in this way: if a prophet was cultivated he
perceived the mind of God in a cultivated way, if he was
confused he perceived it confusedly.  (36) And so with
revelations perceived through visions.  (37) If a prophet was
a countryman he saw visions of oxen, cows, and the like; if
he was a soldier, he saw generals and armies; if a courtier,
a royal throne, and so on.

(2:38) Lastly, prophecy varied according to the opinions held
by the prophets; for instance, to the Magi, who believed in
the follies of astrology, the birth of Christ was revealed
through the vision of a star in the East.  (39) To the augurs
of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem was revealed
through entrails, whereas the king himself inferred it from
oracles and the direction of arrows which he shot into the air.
(40) To prophets who believed that man acts from free choice
and by his own power, God was revealed as standing apart from
and ignorant of future human actions.  (41) All of which we will
illustrate from Scripture.

(2:42) The first point is proved from the case of Elisha, who,
in order to prophecy to Jehoram, asked for a harp, and was unable
to perceive the Divine purpose till he had been recreated by its
music; then, indeed, he prophesied to Jehoram and to his allies
glad tidings, which previously he had been unable to attain to
because he was angry with the king, and these who are angry with
anyone can imagine evil of him, but not good.  (43) The theory
that God does not reveal Himself to the angry or the sad, is a
mere dream: for God revealed to Moses while angry, the terrible
slaughter of the firstborn, and did so without the intervention
of a harp.  (2:44) To Cain in his rage, God was revealed, and to
Ezekiel, impatient with anger, was revealed the contumacy and
wretchedness of the Jews.  (45) Jeremiah, miserable and weary of
life, prophesied the disasters of the Hebrews, so that Josiah
would not consult him, but inquired of a woman, inasmuch as it
was more in accordance with womanly nature that God should reveal
His mercy thereto.  (46) So, Micaiah never prophesied good to Ahab,
though other true prophets had done so, but invariably evil.
(46a) Thus we see that individual prophets were by temperament
more fitted for one sort of revelation than another.

(2:47) The style of the prophecy also varied according to the
eloquence of the individual prophet.  (48) The prophecies of
Ezekiel and Amos are not written in a cultivated style like
those of Isaiah and Nahum, but more rudely.  (49) Any Hebrew
scholar who wishes to inquire into this point more closely,
and compares chapters of the different prophets treating of
the same subject, will find great dissimilarity of style.
(2:50) Compare, for instance, chap. i. of the courtly Isaiah,
verse 11 to verse 20, with chap. v. of the countryman Amos,
verses 21-24.  (51) Compare also the order and reasoning of the
prophecies of Jeremiah, written in Idumaea (chap. xhx.), with
the order and reasoning of Obadiah.  (52) Compare, lastly,
Isa. xl:19, 20, and xliv:8, with Hosea viii:6, and xiii:2.
And so on.

(2:53) A due consideration of these passage will clearly show us
that God has no particular style in speaking, but, according to
the learning and capacity of the prophet, is cultivated,
compressed, severe, untutored, prolix, or obscure.

(2:54) There was, moreover, a certain variation in the visions
vouchsafed to the prophets, and in the symbols by which they
expressed them, for Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord departing
from the Temple in a different form from that presented to
Ezekiel.  (55) The Rabbis, indeed, maintain that both visions
were really the same, but that Ezekiel, being a countryman, was
above measure impressed by it, and therefore set it forth in
full detail; but unless there is a trustworthy tradition on
the subject, which I do not for a moment believe, this theory
is plainly an invention. Isaiah saw seraphim with six wings,
Ezekiel beasts with four wings; Isaiah saw God clothed and
sitting on a royal throne, Ezekiel saw Him in the likeness of a
fire; each doubtless saw God under the form in which he usually
imagined Him.

(2:56) Further, the visions varied in clearness as well as in
details; for the revelations of Zechariah were too obscure to
be understood by the prophet without explanation, as appears