Johannes Cocceius Research Articles

Criticism and Confession: The Bible in the Seventeenth Century Republic of Letters

Criticism and Confession: The Bible in the Seventeenth Century Republic of Letters

“Quid est homo quod memor es ipsius?” Calvin and Cocceius (1603–1669) on Psalm 8

This article addresses a controversy between Reformed theologians on the exegesis of Psalm 8 which arose in the Dutch Reformed Church during the late seventeenth century. The followers of the Leiden theologian Johannes Cocceius proposed an eschatological (even apocalyptic) reading of this Psalm which was vehemently contested by the followers of the Utrecht professor Gisbertus Voetius. Both parties appealed to Calvin’s exegesis of this Psalm and argued that their opinions were in continuity with those of Calvin. By comparing Calvin’s exegesis of this Psalm to Cocceius’s explanation, it is possible to illuminate the seventeenth-century debate on this issue. This may also be instructive for explaining the variegated views on Biblical prophecy within the Reformed tradition. At the same time, an investigation of the sources of both theologians enables us to locate them in the history of exegesis.

Covenant Theology: an Invitation to Friendship

In his covenant or federal theology Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) sought to formulate a theology which described all of human history by introducing the structure of consecutive covenants or foedera. In this essay I explore the various ways in which he described the covenantal relationship between God and humankind in terms of ‘friendship with God’ (amicitia cum Deo). It enabled him to shed new light on many of the traditional topics of Protestant theology: (1) salvation history; (2) ecclesiology (church and sacraments) and (3) the Christian life (ethics). The main thesis defended is that the type of covenant theology presented by Cocceius can be best described as an interesting form of what today might be called a ‘relational theology’ with some significant hermeneutical perspectives and theological possibilities for today.

Cocceius and the Jewish Commentators

The case of Johannes Cocceius defies the commonplace that Leiden University (and perhaps post-Reformation, confessionalized Europe in general) turned away from humanist scholarship in the first quarter of the seventeenth century. In 1650 Cocceius (1603-69), a Bremen-born Oriental philology professor at Franeker, joined the Leiden theological faculty and wrote a treatise, Protheoria de ratione interpretandi sive introductio in philologiam sacram (De ratione). He praised such rabbinic exegetes as Rashi (1040-1105) and David Kimchi (ca. 1160-ca. 1235) in humanist terms for their erudition. At the same time the new Cartesian philosophy was taking hold in the arts faculty, and mathematics instruction was encroaching on scholastic formal logic.1 Leiden would become famous for Cartesianism, mathematics, and Copernicanism in the second half of the seventeenth century, but Cocceius still worked in the tradition of advanced humanist scholarship that had made the institution famous in the sixteenth century.2Leiden's earlier reputation was due in large part to the biblical humanist work of such Renaissance polymaths as Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) and Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), but by Cocceius's time Leiden theologians were subject to greater Church and State control. As Jonathan Israel and Edwin Rabbie have shown, in response to the controversy that surrounded Jacobus Arminius and his stand on predestination, the Synod of Dordrecht (Dort) drafted an anti-Arminian statement in 1619; any professor who did not sign was subject to exile from the republic in addition to dismissal from his post.3 Innovative theology, exegesis, and philology suffered as professors, fearing State and Church reprisals, turned to humanism. As Henk Jan de Jonge has explained, this meant that almost all the theologians of seventeenth-century Leiden who concerned themselves with the explanation of the New Testament placed exegesis at the service of dogmatic objectives.4 Unlike his fellow Leiden theologians, Cocceius pursued biblical humanism and Christian Hebraism through the study of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic-and he did so in a unique way. He was not the first to use Jewish commentaries and even Jewish post-biblical literature for the purpose of reconstructing the original Hebrew Bible, but he was innovative in praising rabbinic scholars as fellow humanists and in incorporating their scholarship into his Christological exegesis and philosophy. He did so, furthermore, not as an independent scholar or pastor or even as a professor of Hebrew; but as the holder of a university chair in theology at a confessionalized university in a century hostile to his brand of late humanism.Although he came to Leiden as a theologian, Cocceius had impressive training as an Orientalist. He had studied with the famous scholar Sixtinus Amama (1593-1629) and polished his Hebrew and Aramaic by working with a Jewish tutor from Hamburg.5 While still a student at Franeker, Cocceius wrote a translation and commentary of the Talmudic tractate Sanhedrin. A few years later he began composing commentaries on the Pentateuch, and, by the time he arrived at Leiden, he had completed one lecture, series of lectures, or piece of writing on every book of the Old Testament. These commentaries were based not only on Cocceius's extensive knowledge of Oriental languages but also on his readings of medieval Jewish commentators. These were the same commentators that Cocceius would later praise in chapter eight of the De ratione.These humanist achievements were much at variance with Cocceius's public persona as perhaps the most prominent Dutch Calvinist theologian of the seventeenth century. For approximately 100 years after his death in 1669 a faction of Leiden theologians calling themselves Cocceians battled the Voetians, followers of Gisbertus Voetius, for the soul of the Dutch Church.6 At Leiden he lectured on the Pauline Epistles, a typical subject for a seventeenth-century Calvinist theologian, and he worked on his famous theological tract, the salvation-historical Summa doctrinae de foedere et testamento Dei (1648). …

Amicitia Dei as Ultimate Reality: An Outline of the Covenant Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669)

Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) est un eminent theologien reforme, ayant vecu aux Pays-Bas. L'A. visite sa theologie pour en faire ressortir une notion essentielle : celle du Pacte, de l'Alliance. L'idee qui domine reside dans cette proposition : l'amitie avec Dieu est la finalite de la realite ultime. Un rappel biographique accompagne cet article

ON FREI'S ECLIPSE OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE

Hans Frei's book deserves much more attention than it has yet received in historical, philosophical and literary circles. His text is best historical study we have in English of developments from Post-Renaissance hermeneutics to mod­ ern hermeneutics of Schleier mâcher and Hegel. Frei's fascinating interpretation is intertwined with a complex argument regarding problematic status of mod­ ern theological discourse. This argument rests upon conceiving the Bible as writ­ ing/' which thereby requires appropriate literary critical tools. Frei's philosophi­ cal perspective is inspired by Karl Barth and indebted to Gilbert Ryle, Peter Strawson and Stuart Hampshire. His literary critical approach is guided by monumental achievement of Erich Auerbach. And Frei's historical interpretation is wholly original—an imaginative reshaping of terrain of early modern in­ terpretation theory. Frei's fresh interpretation demonstrates specific ways in which forms of supernaturalism, historicism, classicism, moralism and positivism have imposed debilitating constraints on emergence of modern hermeneutics. These con­ straints resulted in a discursive closure which prohibited development of a perspective which viewed Biblical texts as literary texts depicting unique charac­ ters and personages. Instead, early modern hermeneutical discourse conceived such texts as manifestations of divine presence, sources for historical reconstruc­ tion, articulations of inner existential anxieties of their authors, bases for moral imperatives or candidates for verifiable claims. In a painstaking and often per­ suasive manner, Frei examines precriticai (a self-serving adjective coined by modern hermeneutical thinkers) interpretive procedures of Luther and Calvin, pietistic viewpoint represented by Johann Jacob Rambach, rationalistic approach of Spinoza and proto-heilsgeschichtliche outlook of Johannes Cocceius. At turn of 18th century, major split arises between narrative and subject matter, literal explicative sense and actual historical reference. In short, texts no longer render reality of history they depict. Following pioneering work of Mark Pattison and Sir Leslie Stephen, Frei locates crystalization of this split in England. With decline of Metaphysical poets, rise of Bunyan's allegorical stories and emergence of authority of scien­ tific discourse, Deist controversy—the search for external evidence for divine revelation—acquires a position of eminence in theological discourse. For Frei, this controversy constitutes beginning of modern theology.