Precedents for various aspects of Rashi’s exegetical program, as discussed in the previous three chapters, can be identified within two Jewish schools of learning, the Andalusian and Byzantine, as well as in the application of the discipline of grammatica to the Bible as attested at the cathedral school of Rheims. Rashi does not mention any Andalusian authors beside Menahem and Dunash, who, uncharacteristically, wrote in Hebrew rather than Arabic, nor does he ever refer to the Byzantine exegetical school. As discussed in the preceding two chapters, this suggests that Rashi was, in fact, unfamiliar with their exegetical accomplishments. Rashi, of course, does not mention Bruno or any other Remois interpreters either. But that silence does not necessarily indicate that he was unaware of the Christian interpretive school. If Rashi knew of the Arabic-writing Jewish Andalusian or Jewish Byzantine philologically oriented Bible commentators, he almost certainly would have cited them as authoritative sources – as he does Menahem and Dunash. On the other hand, Rashi understandably would not have cited Bruno, Remigius, or other Christian interpreters as authorities on the Bible. Furthermore, the hypothesis of “influence” raised in Chapter 3 is not that Rashi consciously adopted Christian interpretive methods, but rather that the grammatical Christological mode of reading advanced by Bruno and his circle at Rheims could have come to Rashi’s attention and posed a challenge that spurred him to develop an opposing Jewish interpretation “settled upon” the language and sequence of Scripture.