202 Gard Granerød “forever” (eij" to;n aijw'na). If Jesus is to be “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek”, it might have been obvious to the author that Melchizedek’s priesthood is eternal also. And if Melchizedek is a perpetual priest, it follows that he does not have any parents, does not belong to any priestly family nor has any end of life. * ** When all is said and done, the Melchizedek speculations in Hebrews should be put in context. These speculations do not represent the theological core of this writing. Rather, they are part of an argumentation with a clearly Christocentric purpose: to portray Christ as the “Son of God”, who in addition is a heavenly high priest. From his position at the right hand of God, this heavenly priest is interceding for his people. As David Hay puts it, Melchizedek is mentioned to demonstrate the reality and superiority of the priestly office of Jesus. He is not related to the priestly work of Jesus. After Heb 7,17 he drops out of sight altogether (38). The roots of the idea about Christ as a heavenly priest are probably earlier than the letter to the Hebrews. However, the author of Hebrews did not necessarily make use of earlier extra-biblical speculations about Melchizedek. Rather, he may have come up with the concept about a semi-divine Melchizedek simply by using the great “tool box” of hermeneutical techniques which was common to many Jewish groups, including that of making arguments from silence. MF Norwegian School of Theology Gard GRANERØD PO Box 5144 Majorstua N-0302 Oslo SUMMARY Hebrews has more to say about Melchizedek than what is said about him in LXX Ps 109,4 (perhaps also MT Ps 110,4) and Genesis 14. Heb 7,3 says that Melchizedek is “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” and that “he remains a priest forever”. I discuss where the author gets this information from. Methodologically, priority should be given to an explanation made on the basis of the hermeneutical techniques that the author uses elsewhere. I argue that the surplus information found in Heb 7,3.8 stems from arguments made from silence. The author explicitly makes arguments from silence in Heb 7,14.20. (38) HAY, Glory, 153.