In a previous post I mentioned that I am reading through John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament. Today, in re-reading Richard Heitzenrater’s Wesley and the People Called Methodists, I came across this passage:
The notes were largely a collation of material from John Heylyn’s Theological Lectures, John Guyse’s Practical Expositor, Philip Doddridge’s Family Expositor, and Johannes Bengel’s Gnomen Novi Testamenti. The latter was one of the first works of modern critical biblical scholarship, and Wesley adopted many of Bengel’s principles of textual criticism. Although the predominance of the material in the notes comes from these sources, Wesley wove them together in such an editorial way that he could own the combined whole. Having acknowledged his debt to these authors in the preface, Wesley chose not to document particular borrowings, as as not to ‘divert the mind of the reader from keeping close to the point in view’ (JWW, 14:235-39). (Heiztenrater, 188)
In a sense then, it would seem that one could argue that our doctrinal understanding of the New Testament comes from John Heylyn, John Guyse, Philip Doddridge, and Johannes Bengel as filtered and collated by Wesley. It is likely that I will not have time in the near future to learn more about these four men, but I would be very interested to explore this further at another time, as I do not know much about any of them, and only recognize Doddridge’s name.
The more I think about the Explanatory Notes and read them, the more surprised I am that they carry the weight of Doctrine for United Methodists. One could ask whether it is necessary to have a Doctrine for the interpretation of the New Testament, but perhaps more to the point, one could ask whether the Explanatory Notes continue to make a relevant contribution to the life of the United Methodist Church.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Kevin M. Watson 
I had never heard of the Explanatory Notes before you posted on them this summer, and their scarcity makes me wonder whether they are making a contribution to the life of the UMC at all. I’ll be interested to see what we discuss about them in my UM History and UM Theology courses.
I was looking at them on the CCEL website, and I noticed that Wesley also has notes on the Old Testament. Any idea why those don’t seem to hold any authority?
I often refer to Wesley’s explanatory notes in sermon preparation. For those who don’t know where to find them on the web, here’s a link:
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php
I have no problem with his filtering the works of others in his presentation of understanding the New Testament. While I wasn’t aware of the sources cited in the post, it is the final work that defines Wesley’s views. It would be interesting, however, to learn more about those who’s works he utilized in compiling his notes. Thanks for the post. I’ll have to be doing some Googling on these writers shortly.
Thanks for the post. I knew that most of the material in the Explanatory Notes didn’t originate with Wesley, but I didn’t know where they originated from, so thanks for that.
As for an interpretation being used as a doctrine standard….for Wesley Scripture was primary and so it makes sense that his ‘take’ on Scripture would be an important part of Wesley’s Theology. What I would love to see is someone go through Wesley’s sermons and add the biblical references to all of Wesley’s sermons, journal entries, letters, etc.
Brandon – Great question about the doctrinal status (or lack thereof) of the OT notes. I don’t know much about the background of the OT notes, but my guess would be that their lack of doctrinal authority is historical… they aren’t part of the standards because Wesley didn’t make them part of the standards in the same way that he did with the NT notes… the way they were written into the Model Deed as defining what was acceptable teaching.
Marty – Thanks for your comment. I am glad to hear of your use of the notes, and thanks for the link! One of the best things, from my perspective, about these posts has been the realization that many people in the bloggin world are not only aware of the notes, but are aware of where they can be found online and are using them.
I agree with you about the final work representing Wesley’s view, he surely would have simply not used those things which represented poor explanations, and selected what he thought adequately described his understanding of Scripture. Though it is a very different approach than we would use today… a seminary paper, for example, that followed that approach would get you expelled.
David – thanks for your comment and analysis of “why doctrinal” As for your last comment about seeing someone go through Wesley’s sermons, journals, and letters I think to a large extent that has already happened in the Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley. The Letters volumes are not complete, but the sermons and journals are, and they contain an abundance of notes that point out that Wesley is citing Scripture, even though it often seems to be unconscious. It is amazing how much the words of Scripture had become a part of his vocabulary!
This post, though about a year old, has been a great help. I appreciate it.
Richard, Good to see you today, and glad this was of some help with the work you are doing. Please keep me posted on what you find!
I am wondering what Richard Heitzenrater’s view Based on his book Wesley and the People called Methodist, reflect on the distinctive Anglican, Purtianm and Pietist contributions that shaped early Methodism and how John Wesley advanced the movement, and what were some of the greatest accomplishments and challenges