1. Vatican Latin MS 1053. For a different interpretation of the history and importance of this text, cf. Signer, M., “Thirteenth Century Hebraism: The Expositio on Canticles in MS Vat. Lat. 1053, ” in Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times, vol. 3, ed. David, Blumenthal (Atlanta, 1988), pp. 89–100.Google Scholar

2. See, for example, Halperin, H., Rashi and the Christian Scholars(Pittsburgh, 1963). Although many of Halperin's conclusions are open to debate, he does provide a wealth of reference that are indicative of the influence of Jewish exegesis. AJS Review16 (1991): 193–198.Google Scholar

3. See, for example, the discussion in Chazan, Robert, Daggers of Faith(Berkeley, 1989), pp. 35–36.Google Scholar

4. On the history of this question, see Grabois, A., “The Hebraica Veritas and Jewish-Christian Intellectual Relations in the Twelfth Century, ” Speculum 50 (1977): 611–634.Google Scholar

5. It is unfortunate that even in recent works that have tried to synthesize the research of the last fifty years concerning the twelfth-century renaissance the issues of Jewish learning and contributions have been ignored. One has only to examine such volumes as L., Benson and G., Constable, eds., Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century(Cambridge, 1982)Google Scholar, to see that the evaluation of Jewish intellectual life is conspicuous for its absence. In terms of the type of studies needed, see Kamin, S., “Rashbam's Conception of Creation in Light of the Intellectual Currents of His Time, ” in Studies in the Bible, ed. S., Japhet (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 91–102.Google Scholar

6. Cf. the discussion in Thompson, Y., “The Commentary of Samuel ben Meir on the Song of Songs” (D.H.L. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary, 1989), pp. 30–40.Google Scholar

7. On the methodology and importance of viewing documents as expressions of crosscultural ideas, see Chazan, Robert, European Jewry and the First Crusade(Berkeley, 1987).Google Scholar