Death notice for Dr. Horace Hummel

[Steven W Bohler]

I was privileged to have had Dr. Hummel for several classes at Concordia Seminary, all of which I thoroughly enjoyed. I learned a great deal from him.

As I believe I have mentioned in this forum before, he and I once spent a week together in the same hospital room--being treated by the seminary's physician for our respective ailments. I was then taking a class from Dr. Hummel, so I received some additional knowledge/tutoring that week, to say the least. Over the course of those days and nights, we became friends. And we promised each other that we would never tell another soul what we witnessed medically that week. I have kept that promise, as I know he did, too. It was a "bonding experience," to say the least. That was midway through my second year.

Yes, we grew apart theologically later on, but I jokingly reminded him years after my graduation, when our paths crossed again shortly before his retirement, "You were partly responsible for introducing historical-critical methods of biblical study at Concordia Seminary, along with Dr. Scharlemann. And I learned some of that methodology from you, including when we spent some time together in the hospital. So you are partially to blame for opening my eyes to the usefulness of those methods for understanding the Holy Scriptures." Horace smiled that wry smile of his and then proceeded to give a nuanced reply that began with the words, "Well, yes, ah-hem, Matthew, but...." (I have copies of those infamous essays of his from the early 1950s.) I told him then how much I appreciated that one afternoon in the hospital, when we spent a few hours discussing the many ways in which "myth" might be a useful genre-category for understanding the nature of Gen. 2-3.

He was a lot of fun as a professor, as long as you kept up with your Hebrew. One week my fellow students and I had to fight off smirking/laughing at the start of Tues's-Fri's classes, as each of those days he wore the same green suit and tie he had worn on Monday. Later we learned that Horace's wife had been out of town that week, and he simply found it easier to wear the same suit each day. And one always knew when Dr. Hummel was preaching in chapel, as you could smell the incense long before you reached the chapel auditorium....

He was a gift to the church, and, as I say, I will always be grateful for what he taught me.

May he rest in the peace and light of the Lord.

Matt Becker

Wait.  The seminary had its own physician?  Like an NFL team?

[Jeremy Loesch]

I was privileged to have had Dr. Hummel for several classes at Concordia Seminary, all of which I thoroughly enjoyed. I learned a great deal from him.

As I believe I have mentioned in this forum before, he and I once spent a week together in the same hospital room--being treated by the seminary's physician for our respective ailments. I was then taking a class from Dr. Hummel, so I received some additional knowledge/tutoring that week, to say the least. Over the course of those days and nights, we became friends. And we promised each other that we would never tell another soul what we witnessed medically that week. I have kept that promise, as I know he did, too. It was a "bonding experience," to say the least. That was midway through my second year.

Yes, we grew apart theologically later on, but I jokingly reminded him years after my graduation, when our paths crossed again shortly before his retirement, "You were partly responsible for introducing historical-critical methods of biblical study at Concordia Seminary, along with Dr. Scharlemann. And I learned some of that methodology from you, including when we spent some time together in the hospital. So you are partially to blame for opening my eyes to the usefulness of those methods for understanding the Holy Scriptures." Horace smiled that wry smile of his and then proceeded to give a nuanced reply that began with the words, "Well, yes, ah-hem, Matthew, but...." (I have copies of those infamous essays of his from the early 1950s.) I told him then how much I appreciated that one afternoon in the hospital, when we spent a few hours discussing the many ways in which "myth" might be a useful genre-category for understanding the nature of Gen. 2-3.

He was a lot of fun as a professor, as long as you kept up with your Hebrew. One week my fellow students and I had to fight off smirking/laughing at the start of Tues's-Fri's classes, as each of those days he wore the same green suit and tie he had worn on Monday. Later we learned that Horace's wife had been out of town that week, and he simply found it easier to wear the same suit each day. And one always knew when Dr. Hummel was preaching in chapel, as you could smell the incense long before you reached the chapel auditorium....

He was a gift to the church, and, as I say, I will always be grateful for what he taught me.

May he rest in the peace and light of the Lord.

Matt Becker

Wait.  The seminary had its own physician?  Like an NFL team?

The seminary prepares us for any given Sunday...

The field is the chancel.  And sometimes you have to go into the medical tent, which is the pastor's study, and get the shot just to get on the field in order to throw that last second benediction to seal the victory!

Jeremy

[John_Hannah]

I was privileged to have had Dr. Hummel for several classes at Concordia Seminary, all of which I thoroughly enjoyed. I learned a great deal from him.

As I believe I have mentioned in this forum before, he and I once spent a week together in the same hospital room--being treated by the seminary's physician for our respective ailments. I was then taking a class from Dr. Hummel, so I received some additional knowledge/tutoring that week, to say the least. Over the course of those days and nights, we became friends. And we promised each other that we would never tell another soul what we witnessed medically that week. I have kept that promise, as I know he did, too. It was a "bonding experience," to say the least. That was midway through my second year.

Yes, we grew apart theologically later on, but I jokingly reminded him years after my graduation, when our paths crossed again shortly before his retirement, "You were partly responsible for introducing historical-critical methods of biblical study at Concordia Seminary, along with Dr. Scharlemann. And I learned some of that methodology from you, including when we spent some time together in the hospital. So you are partially to blame for opening my eyes to the usefulness of those methods for understanding the Holy Scriptures." Horace smiled that wry smile of his and then proceeded to give a nuanced reply that began with the words, "Well, yes, ah-hem, Matthew, but...." (I have copies of those infamous essays of his from the early 1950s.) I told him then how much I appreciated that one afternoon in the hospital, when we spent a few hours discussing the many ways in which "myth" might be a useful genre-category for understanding the nature of Gen. 2-3.

He was a lot of fun as a professor, as long as you kept up with your Hebrew. One week my fellow students and I had to fight off smirking/laughing at the start of Tues's-Fri's classes, as each of those days he wore the same green suit and tie he had worn on Monday. Later we learned that Horace's wife had been out of town that week, and he simply found it easier to wear the same suit each day. And one always knew when Dr. Hummel was preaching in chapel, as you could smell the incense long before you reached the chapel auditorium....

He was a gift to the church, and, as I say, I will always be grateful for what he taught me.

May he rest in the peace and light of the Lord.

Matt Becker

Hummel used the so called historical critical as did Scharlemann. Hummel taught at St. Louis in the mid 1950's and was forced out. After SEMINEX he was brought back just as Scharlemann was elevated to the presidency.

I count their cases as evidence that the struggle was less about the Bible and more about ballots (electoral secular politics).

Peace, JOHN

[Donald_Kirchner]

And one always knew when Dr. Hummel was preaching in chapel, as you could smell the incense...

Indeed!

[Charles Austin]

Dr. Hummel was teaching at The Lutheran school of theology at Chicago, Maywood campus, when I entered there in 1963. As I noted upstream, he taught us much, including the source theories concerning JEDP. I kept his notes for years, including the Bible where I had marked the various sources in different colors, according to his direction.
He also had a healthy impact on the liturgical life of the campus which included daily worship in the chapel.
Ten years after the Seminex walkout, I went to St. Louis to write about the seminary under the new regimes. At the close of our interview, I asked him how it was that he taught us about JEDP  and now seemed to repudiate that teaching.
“You may not remember,” he said, “that I referred to those matters as ‘theories’.”
He was right, I didn’t.

[John_Hannah]

Dr. Hummel was teaching at The Lutheran school of theology at Chicago, Maywood campus, when I entered there in 1963. As I noted upstream, he taught us much, including the source theories concerning JEDP. I kept his notes for years, including the Bible where I had marked the various sources in different colors, according to his direction.
He also had a healthy impact on the liturgical life of the campus which included daily worship in the chapel.
Ten years after the Seminex walkout, I went to St. Louis to write about the seminary under the new regimes. At the close of our interview, I asked him how it was that he taught us about JEDP  and now seemed to repudiate that teaching.
“You may not remember,” he said, “that I referred to those matters as ‘theories’.”
He was right, I didn’t.

Smooth dismissal.   

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

One of the things that changed over the twentieth century when Horace studied and taught was knowledge from archaeology. As a student he learned the critical literary theories that prevailed in the nineteenth century and lasted into the twentieth century. However, knowledge of biblical Israel, etc. continued to grow as digs multiplied and ANE texts were translated and studied. Horace was a part of that transition in biblical studies. One of his last articles on the topic is in the Lutheran Bible Companion, vol. 2, which I edited. Knowing the history of biblical studies helps one understand him and the changes both he and the synod went through.

[John_Hannah]

One of the things that changed over the twentieth century when Horace studied and taught was knowledge from archaeology. As a student he learned the critical literary theories that prevailed in the nineteenth century and lasted into the twentieth century. However, knowledge of biblical Israel, etc. continued to grow as digs multiplied and ANE texts were translated and studied. Horace was a part of that transition in biblical studies. One of his last articles on the topic is in the Lutheran Bible Companion, vol. 2, which I edited. Knowing the history of biblical studies helps one understand him and the changes both he and the synod went through.

The question that future historians will have to answer is this: Were the biblical scholars at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis teaching a critical theory that rejected creedal/confessional faith.

I believe not and have never been proven otherwise. No one was formally "convicted" except by media such as Christian News. That is why Schaarlemann and Hummel were able to be continued at "801." The others were feared to be Democrats.

Peace, JOHN

[Brian Stoffregen]

One of the things that changed over the twentieth century when Horace studied and taught was knowledge from archaeology. As a student he learned the critical literary theories that prevailed in the nineteenth century and lasted into the twentieth century. However, knowledge of biblical Israel, etc. continued to grow as digs multiplied and ANE texts were translated and studied. Horace was a part of that transition in biblical studies. One of his last articles on the topic is in the Lutheran Bible Companion, vol. 2, which I edited. Knowing the history of biblical studies helps one understand him and the changes both he and the synod went through.

The question that future historians will have to answer is this: Were the biblical scholars at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis teaching a critical theory that rejected creedal/confessional faith.

I believe not and have never been proven otherwise. No one was formally "convicted" except by media such as Christian News. That is why Schaarlemann and Hummel were able to be continued at "801." The others were feared to be Democrats.

I'm fairly certain that if they had had their day in court and were found "not guilty," that would not have stopped the opposition from going after them. It happened with Matthew Becker. Didn't also happen with John Tietjen? Didn't the seminary board support him and his teaching? (As I understand it, one of the conflicts was between the Seminary Board of Regents and the Synod President: who had the authority over the seminary?)

[Dave Likeness]

Dr. Horace Hummel was not on campus during my time at Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis. However, while in the parish I bought his O.T.
Introduction: The Word Becoming Flesh" and his two commentaries
on Ezekiel.  He definitely qualifies as an O.T. scholar.

Both Dr. Martin Scharlemann and Dr. A.C. Piepkorn were on campus
when I was a seminarian.  Scharlemann was also an Air Force Chaplain
with the rank of Brigadier General and Piepkorn was an Army Chaplain
with the rank of Colonel.  What really separated these two professors
was their personality.  Scharlemann came across as a proud rooster &
Piepkorn as a humble servant of the Lord.

[John_Hannah]

One of the things that changed over the twentieth century when Horace studied and taught was knowledge from archaeology. As a student he learned the critical literary theories that prevailed in the nineteenth century and lasted into the twentieth century. However, knowledge of biblical Israel, etc. continued to grow as digs multiplied and ANE texts were translated and studied. Horace was a part of that transition in biblical studies. One of his last articles on the topic is in the Lutheran Bible Companion, vol. 2, which I edited. Knowing the history of biblical studies helps one understand him and the changes both he and the synod went through.

The question that future historians will have to answer is this: Were the biblical scholars at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis teaching a critical theory that rejected creedal/confessional faith.

I believe not and have never been proven otherwise. No one was formally "convicted" except by media such as Christian News. That is why Schaarlemann and Hummel were able to be continued at "801." The others were feared to be Democrats.

I'm fairly certain that if they had had their day in court and were found "not guilty," that would not have stopped the opposition from going after them. It happened with Matthew Becker. Didn't also happen with John Tietjen? Didn't the seminary board support him and his teaching? (As I understand it, one of the conflicts was between the Seminary Board of Regents and the Synod President: who had the authority over the seminary?)

Actually, Tietjen was acquitted.

Becker was acquitted the first time. The second time, the case was dropped when the accuser got involved in his own disciplinary problem. And the third time, Becker simply resigned from the synod, not wanting to undergo the tedious work of defending his case again.

[Dan Fienen]

One of the things that changed over the twentieth century when Horace studied and taught was knowledge from archaeology. As a student he learned the critical literary theories that prevailed in the nineteenth century and lasted into the twentieth century. However, knowledge of biblical Israel, etc. continued to grow as digs multiplied and ANE texts were translated and studied. Horace was a part of that transition in biblical studies. One of his last articles on the topic is in the Lutheran Bible Companion, vol. 2, which I edited. Knowing the history of biblical studies helps one understand him and the changes both he and the synod went through.

The question that future historians will have to answer is this: Were the biblical scholars at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis teaching a critical theory that rejected creedal/confessional faith.

I believe not and have never been proven otherwise. No one was formally "convicted" except by media such as Christian News. That is why Schaarlemann and Hummel were able to be continued at "801." The others were feared to be Democrats.

I'm fairly certain that if they had had their day in court and were found "not guilty," that would not have stopped the opposition from going after them. It happened with Matthew Becker. Didn't also happen with John Tietjen? Didn't the seminary board support him and his teaching? (As I understand it, one of the conflicts was between the Seminary Board of Regents and the Synod President: who had the authority over the seminary?)

You really should obtain a better grasp of the history before making pronouncements. The process did indict John Tietjen and as I recall suspended him and would likely have removed him from his position had he not resigned first. The professors removed themselves from the authority of the Board of Control before their cases could be adjudicated by first walking out and then refusing to return to their positions until the charges against them were dropped, in effect resigning before a determination could be made. Not as juicy a narrative. Over the years leading up to the walk out the membership of the Boad of Control changed.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

One of the things that changed over the twentieth century when Horace studied and taught was knowledge from archaeology. As a student he learned the critical literary theories that prevailed in the nineteenth century and lasted into the twentieth century. However, knowledge of biblical Israel, etc. continued to grow as digs multiplied and ANE texts were translated and studied. Horace was a part of that transition in biblical studies. One of his last articles on the topic is in the Lutheran Bible Companion, vol. 2, which I edited. Knowing the history of biblical studies helps one understand him and the changes both he and the synod went through.

The question that future historians will have to answer is this: Were the biblical scholars at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis teaching a critical theory that rejected creedal/confessional faith.

I believe not and have never been proven otherwise. No one was formally "convicted" except by media such as Christian News. That is why Schaarlemann and Hummel were able to be continued at "801." The others were feared to be Democrats.

Peace, JOHN

John, the issue as I understand it is that the critical views lead to very different understandings of the biblical texts upon which the Creeds and Confessions rest. For example, belief in the fall into sin and original sin are crucial to Lutheran theology. Historical critical methods tend to deny the fall as a real event and Adam and Eve as real persons. It may begin to call into question the First and Second Articles of the Creed. Whether the Walkout faculty had gone that far, I cannot say. But I think anyone might see the potential for damaging the Faith as has clearly happened in many church bodies.

Although one may not be able to condemn the Walkout faculty for specific denials of Creeds and Confessions, one might also understand why church leaders felt alarm and a need to investigate, not to mention the usual political infighting that complicates church life.

[Brian Stoffregen]

You really should obtain a better grasp of the history before making pronouncements. The process did indict John Tietjen and as I recall suspended him and would likely have removed him from his position had he not resigned first. The professors removed themselves from the authority of the Board of Control before their cases could be adjudicated by first walking out and then refusing to return to their positions until the charges against them were dropped, in effect resigning before a determination could be made. Not as juicy a narrative. Over the years leading up to the walk out the membership of the Boad of Control changed.

I seem to be in agreement with this post:

Actually, Tietjen was acquitted.