Question XV. (marg.) [Did Moses act] as a political prince, or as an Ecclesiastic or Prophet, [when] the same imposition of hands was made?

It is sufficiently plain from what was said in Exodus, that in the one Moses there was a threefold person — namely, of a political prince, of an Ecclesiastical prince or Priest, and of a Prophet — as [is] handed down concerning Moses in three books by Philo. Now indeed, when he ought to impose hands on Joshua, which of these persons did he bear? For he could — both as a pious prince, well pray for a successor; and, as a Priest, conceive a solemn prayer as it were, and offer that [as] a sacred victim to God Himself — namely, in his [Joshua’s] obsequy, [as] the column of religion and of the law, [and] the stabilishment and advantage of the people; and, as a certain Prophet, admonished and incited by God — as others afterward anointed and inaugurated certain [men]. To me, however, it more smiles [I rather prefer], that he did this very [thing] as a Priest and Pontiff, although an extraordinary [one]. For, since that prayer was public and solemn, it more befitted a priest, and in that manner was in a certain measure worthier, and more pleasing to God — namely, because it proceeded from a worthier office and power, which approaches nearer to God. But you will meet [me with the objection], that this imposition ought then to have been made not by Moses, but by Eleazar, because he was both the ordinary pontiff, and was then present. It could indeed have been done by him, and would have been done, unless this last [act], as it were, had been an act of Moses — in which it was fitting that he, about to die, should pray for [only] the best and most auspicious things for his successor: the master for his minister, the teacher for his disciple, and, as it were, a dearest father for a dearest son.