I had never heard of the Greek-Spanish lexicon DGE, though I’m aware that there are those who consider BDAG to be the best lexicon.
As i see it BDAG’s aion & aionios entries are mainly just a bunch of selected references to ancient usages of the words plus its author/s biased opinions as to how the word should be defined. It seems likely the vast majority of its Christian readers (e.g. pastors) take such opinions on blind faith like BDAG is a substitute pontiff without ever having read, let alone studied, the cites themselves.
The citations themselves are a small selection that BDAG selected out from numerous ancient references to the words & as such have left out those that oppose the conclusions of BDAG, including several i’ve posted already in this thread from Deissman’s tablet, Philo, Origen & Chrysostom. Therein is the bias of pro endless punishment biased lexicons & scholars such as BDAG exposed. The question is did they omit such references out of being ignorant of them, or willfully in order to sell more books to their endless punishment buyers?
The BDAG second entry on aionios as “pert. to a period of time without beginning or end…Ro 16:26…Hb 9:14…” (p.33) is IMO probably wrong in light of there being a beginning to the “times aionion” since there was a ‘time’ “before times aionion” (2 Tim.1:9; Titus 1:2; cf 1 Cor.2:7, before the eons). Also, arguably, there will be an end of all aions & aionion periods as per 1 Cor.10:11 & Heb.9:26 according to these two posts at:https://www.christianforums.com/threads/for-the-lord-will-not-cast-off-for-ever.8041512/#post-72126038
Every other scholarly source & lexicon i consulted (of 10 in total) did not agree with & or opposed BDAG re aion being a personal entity Aeon in Eph.2:2; Col.1:26; Eph.3:9. So who’s wrong, the vast majority of scholars, lexicons & commentaries? Or BDAG?
Eminent lexicographer John A. L. Lee, in his book “A History of New Testament Lexicography” (2014), which has been well reviewed by his peers, points out many errors in BDAG & how lexicons have often blindly copied from one another, including their mistakes.
“Baldwin’s use of the lexicons as authoritative raises the question: Do the lexicons provide authoritative boundaries for the meaning and glosses of αὐθεντέω in the various contexts? Lee, Nida and Louw are agreed that the answer is ‘no’, not only for αὐθεντέω, but in general. Lee asserts, ‘The body of attestations accumulated in the lexicons has reached its greatest extent yet. But because of the ways it has been gathered there is an inherent unreliability’ (Lee, Lexicography, p. 124). Nida and Louw write: ‘We must not assume that the English glosses in a Greek–English lexicon can provide accurate information about the designative and associative meanings of a Greek term’ (Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics, p. 59)”
"No one has drawn more attention to the methodological issues and, well, let’s face, flaws, in our New Testament Greek lexicons that John A. L. Lee. In a good summary statement of the state of affairs of our lexicons, Lee says “The concise, seemingly authoritative statement of meaning can, and often does, conceal many sins - indecision, compromise, imperfect knowledge, guesswork, and, above all, dependence on predecessors.”
Lee is quoted again: “…NT lexicons are contaminated by glosses from the standard translations, going back as far as the Vulgate.” https://books.google.ca/books?id=qSDABQAAQBAJ&pg=PT77&lpg=PT77&dq=NT+lexicons+are+contaminated+by+glosses+from+the+standard+translations,+going+back+as+far+as+the+Vulgate&source=bl&ots=2DhEuz321X&sig=WqEru2rQlmvcYL8fgoqxo-qHzlY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7_LyjiavXAhUH6mMKHXQdA0IQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=NT%20lexicons%20are%20contaminated%20by%20glosses%20from%20the%20standard%20translations%2C%20going%20back%20as%20far%20as%20the%20Vulgate&f=false
“The first three chapters chronicle the three leading characteristics of the NT lexicographical tradition: reliance on predecessors, employment of the gloss method, and dependence on versions. Lee demonstrates how lexicographers in their choice of glosses frequently drew on the rendering of a given word in current translations and shows the chain of development from the KJV to Tyndale, from Tyndale to Luther, and from Luther via Erasmus to the Vulgate. He also points to the limitations of the gloss method and advocates a definition approach instead… Hence even BDAG (2000) is but the last in a series of works with a long, checkered pedigree that should now give way to new efforts…” http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/47/47-3/47-3-pp481-547_JETS.pdf
The Curious Case of Gerhard Kittel, the Nazi lexicographer: https://bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2012/05/the-curious-case-of-gerhard-kittel/
Myth: Biblical Reference Works Are Objective: https://cruxsolablog.com/2014/10/30/myth-biblical-reference-works-are-objective-gupta/
" Lee goes on to say that lexicographical work in Greek – especially the vocabulary of the LXX – is far from over not just in terms of demand, but in terms of accuracy. There is a huge amount of sources not yet incorporated into our understanding of Koine Greek. Undertaking exhaustive and integrative analysis of this body of language is therefore essential to interpreting Scripture rightly." https://williamaross.com/2015/02/16/lexicography-for-the-church/
“Recent studies have…demonstrated the inadequacies of many of the standard Greek lexicons, including Bauer & Dankers:”
Christian Identity in Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians …By V. Henry T. Nguyenhttps: