THOLUCK, FRIEDRICH AUGUST GOTTREU. - Protestant theologian of the “awakening” movement, born in Breslau on 30 March 1799, died at Halle on 10 June 1877.
A poor student in Berlin from 1816, he became amanuensis to the orientalist von Dietz, who, together with Baron H. E. von Kottwitz, formed him in deep piety. T. adhered to Pietism (v.). He took an interest in foreign missions, for which he founded a special society in Berlin; he was director of the Hauptbibelgesellschaft for the years 1821–25. He participated in Protestant missions among the Jews, directing the journal Freund Israels (1824–26). In 1821, through the intervention of Minister Altmann, he was granted the venia legendi. In Berlin he wrote chiefly orientalist treatises, especially on Sufism (v.), the book Sohar (v. CABBALA), and a commentary on Romans (Halle 1824). He became more famous through his partly autobiographical book: Guido und Julius. Die Lehre vom Sünder und vom Versöhner, oder Die wahre Weihe des Zweiflers (Hamburg 1823; 9th ed., 1870). Translated into five languages, it was the most widely read and esteemed book of the entire “awakening” movement and, from its very title, it opposed the Lehrroman (doctrinal novel) of the “rational-mythical” De Wette entitled Theodor oder des Zweiflers Weihe. Yet in some respects T. approached Schleiermacher in admitting that religion is a feeling of absolute dependence and that dogmas, symbols, and religious doctrines matter little in comparison with fervent service to God.
In 1826 T. became ordinary professor at Halle, then the most attended Protestant theological faculty in all Germany. The Prussian government’s plans to foster religious renewal were opposed by the rationalist professors at Halle, such as W. Gesenius (v.) and J. A. C. Wegscheider (1771–1849); students and citizens of Halle were stirred up. The government resisted, but T. found himself in an extremely delicate situation; his commentary on John (Hamburg 1827) was savaged in the faculty’s review. To restore his health, appointed chaplain to the Prussian embassy in Rome, T. Bunsen (v.) in 1828–29 and declared that Rome gave him freer breathing space and loosened many pietistic strictures. Returning in 1830, he founded the journal: Literarischer Anzeiger für christliche Theologie und Wissenschaft überhaupt (20 vols., Halle 1830–49).
T.’s activity extended to three fields. In the exegetical field he supervised the edition of Calvin’s commentaries on the New Testament, the Psalms, and the Institutiones (Berlin 1831–36); he published Bergpredigt Christi (later Bergrede Christi) (Hamburg 1833; 5th ed., Gotha 1872); Hebräerbrief (Gotha 1836, 1850); Das A. Test. im N. Test. (ib. 1836; 6th ed., 1872); Die Glaubwürdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte (against Strauss [v.], ib. 1836, 1837, translated into French, Paris 1847); Die Psalmen (ib. 1843, 1872); Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen (Gotha 1860, 1867); etc. As an exegete, though attaching less importance to philology, he could draw out the profound religious sense of the Bible. In the apologetic and historical field: Vermischte Schriften grossenteils apologetischen Inhalts (Hamburg 1839, 1867); Zur Charakteristik rationalistischer Polemik (Halle 1840); Gespräche über die vornehmsten Glaubensfragen der Zeit (Gotha 1846, 1865); Der Geist der lutherischen Theologen Wittenbergs im 17. Jahrhundert (Hamburg 1852); Vorgeschichte des Rationalismus (4 vols., Halle-Berlin 1853–62); Das akademische Leben des 17. Jahrhunderts (2 vols., 1861 ff.); Geschichte des Rationalismus, I. Geschichte des Pietismus und des ersten Stadiums der Aufklärung (Berlin 1865), in which, besides rationalism, T. criticizes Lutheran orthodoxy, which, he holds, by depriving religion of deep feeling, contained within itself the seeds of rationalism. His sermons and spiritual conversations form the activity most dear to T., who was much sought after as a preacher. From 1839 he was officially student chaplain at Halle, whom he assisted with conversations, letters, and subsidies, so as to earn the title “Studentenvater,” father of the students.
While admiring in T. his deep religious feeling, his zeal for God’s cause, and his charity toward his neighbor, one must lament his lack of clarity and dogmatic precision. He fell victim to the “romanticism” of his time, so favorable to the return to religion in the Prussian state, and when the climate changed profoundly, his successors, such as Martin Kähler (1835–1912) and Julius Schniewind (1883–1948), were compelled increasingly to sacrifice revealed truth (cf. Verbum Domini, 31 [1953], pp. 40–42).