Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 201 7,3.8 concerning Melchizedek as the result of the author’s use of a certain hermeneutical technique? Methodologically, one should give priority to an explanation made on the basis of the hermeneutical techniques that the author of Hebrews seems to be using elsewhere in his writing. The alternative, the assumption that he somehow is dependent upon current traditions about a semi-divine Melchizedek, cannot be excluded. However, such presumptions unfortunately cannot be checked (37). We do not have access to the library which the author of Hebrews had at his disposal. And — we do not know precisely what oral traditions he was familiar with. However, it is noteworthy that the author explicitly makes arguments from silence in both Heb 7,14 and 7,20. In the former verse he states that “… it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.” A few verses later in 7,20, referring to the oracle in LXX Ps 109,4 which he understands as spoken to Jesus, he argues that “This was confirmed with an oath; for others who became priests took their office without an oath…”. My argument is that it is quite likely that the author of Hebrews in 7,3.8 in a similar way has “exploited” a potential already present in the Melchizedek texts of the OT. For, as he already made clear in Heb 5,6,10 and 6,20, it is essential for him that Jesus is a “(high) priest according to the order of Melchizedek”, in accordance with LXX Ps 109,4. In this oracle which is so important for the author, there is an additional phrase: the priesthood granted to Jesus is said to be (37) ASCHIM, “Melchizedek and Jesus”, argues that Hebrews makes use of a Melchizedek tradition that is very similar to the one in 11QMelch. The arguments are given in ibid., 136-143. For instance, on p. 140 it is said that the Yom Kippur motif found in both 11QMelch and Heb 9,7 provides “a point of contact that cannot be directly derived from the biblical Melchizedek passages [in Gen 14,18- 20 and Ps 110,4], an important indication of a shared tradition beyond that contained in the biblical texts.” In my view, however, the “Yom Kippur- argument” as well as the other arguments Aschim puts forward to prove that 11QMelch and Hebrews both draw upon a common Melchizedek tradition, are not persuasive. The (relatively few) similarities with regard to Melchizedek can be explained differently. The author of 11QMelch on the one hand and the author of Hebrews on the other have both — independently of each other but using the same Scriptures and comparable hermeneutical methods — come up with a comparable, but by no means identical, result. The fact that the Day of Atonement ritual plays a role in both texts says more about the high esteem for the Yom Kippur rituals in various branches of Judaism than it says about a common Melchizedek tradition upon which 11QMelch and Hebrews draw.