200 Gard Granerød texts. There are no indications that he had direct access to, say, a composition related to the one we know today as 11QMelch. In principle, another explanation is possible, namely that the theologians at Qumran on the one hand and the author of Hebrews on the other — independently of each other — are dependent on a common Melchizedek tradition — a tradition which, then, has more to say about this figure than what is found in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110(33). If that is the case, the author of Hebrews has found such a tradition useful for his cause — namely to develop the idea that Christ, sitting at the right hand of God (Heb 1,3), is a priest who has made “a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people” (Heb 2,17) and continues to intercede (Heb 7,25). Above, I argued that there are reasons to believe that the author did not invent the idea about Christ being a priest. It was probably already part of Christian tradition. Nevertheless, I will argue that one should consider another explanation — instead of positing some kind of “Legendenkranz” related to Melchizedek (34). Although the author of Hebrews uses a Greek text of the OT, he nevertheless employs various Jewish hermeneutical techniques. Here, I will give a brief survey of them (35). I have already mentioned typology, which I consider to be the most dominant one in Hebrews. In addition, the author of Hebrews (1) expounds the text on the basis of the literal meaning of the text (e.g. Heb 1,7; 9,20). (2) He also occasionally interprets according to a H prediction–fulfillment pattern (e.g. Jer 31,31-34 [LXX 38,31-34] eb 8,8-12). (3) He employs allegorical method, finding spiritually important content hidden in the literal meaning of the text (Num 12,7 Heb 3,2.6). (4) He makes deductions a minori ad maius in a way comparable to the later Rabbis (Heb 9,13-14) (36). (5) He makes analogical deductions on the basis of two or more texts that he consider to be connected to each other due to common catchwords or common contents (gezerah shawah, catchword “rest” in Ps 95,11 [LXX 94,11] + Gen 2,2-3 Heb 4,3-5). Is it possible to explain the surplus information that we find in Heb (33) So e.g. ASCHIM, “Melchizedek and Jesus”, 129-147 and recently also T. ELGVIN, “Sixty Years of Qumran Research: Implications for Biblical Studies”, SEÅ 73 (2008) 7-28 (26, referring to Aschim). (34) So e.g. BÖTTERICH, “Hebr 7,3 und die frühjüdische Melchizedeklegende”, 67. (35) See e.g. STUHLMACHER, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, II, 90. (36) Also present in the teaching of Jesus, cf. Matt 10,29-31.