RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Doctrine Sodanim
highest results only by dealing with the matter from the religio-historical point of view, and that of Stange (following Baur), who thinks 8. Method that it should be treated purely as a and Scope, history of ideas, praise and blame being completely eliminated, and every phase of doctrine being regarded as part of a process. As a matter of fact, every historian has some sort of standpoint, and pure objectivity is out of the question. Still, it is no disqualification in the historian of dogmas to be imbued with Evangelical principles and to be a master of dogmatics. The better he understands current dogmas the better should he be able to understand the process by which they have been reached. As regards the starting-point and the closing-point of the history of dogmas, the question at issue is whether it should begin with the teachings of Christ and the apostles and end with the present, or begin with the earliest ecclesiastical formulations and end with the latest. Against making the teachings of Christ and the apostles the starting-point is the fact that New Testament theology is in itself so large and complicated a subject and contains so many elements of controversy as to require separate treatment. The historian of dogmas must base himself upon the most assured results of New Testament criticism, exegesis, and theology, rather than attempt to make New Testament theology a part of his field. Certainly, the history of dogmas does not end with the Formula of Concord, the Westminster Confession, or any other symbol; but is it possible to discern surely between modern dogmatics and dogmas ? Therefore the history of dogmas may stop with the latest ecclesiastical formulations of dogmas.
The relation of the history of doctrines to other theological disciplines, especially to symbolics and church history, can not be adequately treated here. The former can be more advantageously treated in the article Symbolics. The history of dogmas is undoubtedly a part of church history, and the question is how far the former should be eliminated from lectures and text-books on church history and reserved for separate treatment. (F. Loofs.)
Bibliography: On the conception of history of doctrine consult: K. Daub, in Zeitschrift filr speculative Theologie, i. 1 (1836), 1-60, i. 2, pp. 63-132, ii. 1 (1837), 88-161; T. F. D. Kliefoth, Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte, Parchim, 1839; C. F. Khng, in TSK, xiii (1840), 1051-1152, xiv (1841), 749-852, xvi (1843), 217-259; J. E. Kuhn, in TQ, 1850, pp. 249-253; F. Niedner, iin ZHT, xxi (1851), 579-678; F. C. Baur, Die Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtsschreibung, Tubingen, 1853; G. Frommel, Introduction h I'hist. des dogmes, D61e, 1895; G. Kriiger, Was heisst und zu welchem Ende stvdiert man Dogmengeschichte? Freiburg, 1895; C. A. Bernouilli, Die wissenschaftliche und die kirchliche Methode in der Theoloaie, ib. 1897; C. Stange, Das Dogma und seine Beurteilung in der neueren Dogmengeschichte, Berhn, 1898.
The works on the history of doctrine earher than the nineteenth century are given in Hauck-Herzog, RE, iv. 752. Later works, in addition to those indicated in the body of the article, are as follows: L. Berthold, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 2 vols., Erlangen, 1822-23; F. O. Baumgarten-Crusius, Kompendium der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1840-46; C. G. H. Lentz, Geschichte der christlichen Dogmen in pragmatischer Entwickelung, 2 vols., Helmstedt, 1834-35; J. C. W. Augusti, Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, Leipsic, 1835; H. Klee, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,
2 vols., Mainz, 1837-38; D. F. Strauss, Die christliche Glaubenslehre in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung 2 vols Tubingen, 1840-41; P. Marheineke, Christliche DogmeZ geschichte, Berlin, 1849; J. M. A. Ginoulhias, Hist, du dogme catholique, 3 vols., Paris, 1852-62; L. Noack, Die christliche Dogmengeschichte nach ihrem organischen Ent^ wicklungsgange, Erlangen, 1853; J. C. L. Gieseler, Dogmengeschichte, Bonn, 1855; A. Neander, Christliche Dogmengeschichte, Berhn, 1857; E. Haag, Hist, des dogmes Chretiens, 2 vols., Paris, 1862; J. Schwane, Dogmengeschichte, 4 vols., Munster, 1862-90; K. Beck, Christliche Dogmengeschichte, Tubingen, 1864; K. F. A. Kahnis, Der Kirchenglaube historisch-genetisch dargestellt, Leipsic, 1864; J. Zobl, Dogmengeschichte der katholischen Kirche, Innsbruck, 1865; F. C. Baur, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Tiibingen, 1867; J. Bach, Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters, 2 vols., Vienna, 1873-75; T. C. Crippen, Popular Introduction to the Hist, of Christian Doctrine, Edinburgh, 1883; A. V. G. Allen, The Continuity of Christian Thought, Boston, 1884; W. G. T. Shedd, Hist, of Christian Doctrine, New York, 1884; H. G. Sheldon, Hist, of Christian Doctrine, ib. 1886; G. Thomasius, Die christliche Dogmengeschichte, 2 vols., Erlangen, 1886-89; H. Schmid, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Nordlingen, 1887; K, R. Hagenbach, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Leipsic, 1888, Eng. transl. of 4th ed., 2 vols.. New York, 1861-62; C. H. Tuthill, Origin and Development of Christian Dogma, London, 1888; F. Bonifas, Hist, des dogmes de I'eglise chretienne, 2 vols., Paris, 1889; A. Harnack, Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte, 2 parts, Freiburg, 1889-91, Eng. transl.. Outlines of a History of Dogma, London, 1893; R Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 2 vols., Erlangen, 1895-98, 2d ed., 1907 sqq.; idem, Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte, Leipsic, 1905; G. P. Fisher, Hist, of Christian Doctrine, New York, 1896; J. Orr, Progress of Dogma, London, 1901; J. Turmel, Hist, de la theologie positive, Paris, 1904.
DODANIM : According to Gen. x. 4, one of the four sons of Javan (q.v.). The question of identification is complicated by the question of the correct reading in this passage and in the parallel (I Chron. i. 7). In Genesis the Hebrew manuscripts, the Targums, Vulgate, and Peshito read Dodanim ; the Samaritan, Septuagint, and Lucian read Bodanim {Rodioi), thus agreeing with most of the Hebrew manuscripts of I Chron. i. 7 (where, however, Lucian and IBen Asher read Dodanim). Compare the R. V. with the A. V. F Brown {Hebrew and English Lexicon, p. 187, New York, 1906) reads Rodanim. To explain the two forms which the manuscripts thus attest, the conjecture has been made that the author of Gen. x. obtained his information concerning Greek peoples from Phenician travelers, that he possibly wrote Dardanim (cf. Gk. Dardanoi, " Trojans "), and that the " r " was subsequently misread as " w " (o), the word thus appearing as Dodanim. Later writers (this theory proceeds), composing after the name Dardanoi had disappeared from use, would naturally use " Rhodians," which was the form the (late) Chronicler employed as attested by the manuscripts. If, however, Rodanim be the correct reading in Genesis, this explanation is unnecessary. Against this reading are the early authorities as cited above; in favor of it are the later date of Gen. X. and the far greater probability of mention of Rhodians than of Dardanians in that period. If Dodanim be the original reading, it is impossible to say what part of tlie Greek people the author had in mind. The reading Rodanim gives a simple and direct solution, referring to the inhabitants of Rhodes. Geo. W Gilmore.
Bibliography: B. Stade, De populo Javan parergon, Giessen, 1880; and the Bible dictionaries on the word.
Doddridge Doedes