Scholarship has long recognized the peculiar use of Scripture in Hebrews. This paper addresses the existing scholarship on this issue in two ways. First, it questions whether “Scripture” is even a proper analytical category when it comes to Hebrews; the epistle does not seem to have any concept resembling the later notions of “canon” and “canonicity,” and conceives its reference texts as open. Second, this paper looks closely at Hebrews’ interpretive assumptions and devices, particularly as evident from chapters 1-2. These assumptions and practices have been commonly linked to the Alexandrian exegetical tradition. This paper disputes the usefulness of this association and advances the thesis that the author has a complex and inventive approach to his sources and uses interpretive devices that range from situational analogies relying on protasis-apodosis deductions (e.g., the use of “I will trust in him” in 2:13) to extended semantic connections (e.g., between proskunesatosan and leitourgous in 1:6 and respectively 1:7). These inventive interpretive devices rather mirror the later Mishnaic practices of interpretation.