I was not aware the LXX included a Greek dictionary or a concordance. The truth will be found in what the Writer meant when the word was written, and the waters there have been thoroughly muddied by translators who were bound to a theo-illogical list of doctrines and/or dogmas. Just think what might have happened to the KJV translators if they had failed to follow the instructions of King James, or if they had deviated from supporting the doctrines of the Anglican Church...
G166 αιωνιος aiwvios as eternal, evelasting, perpetual, immortal as does the LXX on page 10 of the Lexical Concordance under G126 αιδιος ןד is eternal Romans 1:20 and Jude 6 The Apostolic Bible Polygot
Yes there have been many translators like James Strong before the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE.
PREPARED BYTHE REV. JOHN M'CLINTOCK, D.D., AND
Dr. JAMES STRONG, S.T.D.
eternal is a long period of time, without reference to beginning or end" (
BDAG3). An indefinite period of time, usually a long time, or a time without any end at all.
αἰώνιος, αἰωνίου, ὁ, ἡ (Masc/Fem, 2-2 type), or
αἰώνιος, αἰωνία, αἰώνιον (2-1-2)
Adjective: "
eternal, endless; pertaining to an indeterminate amount of time" With regards to created spirits, it can mean "pertaining to an everlasting period of time" — i.e., having begun as God's creation in time, then existing forever after into eternity. However, with reference to God, it means "pertaining to existence outside of time, without beginning or end."
ἀναλόω (Alternate form: ἀναλίσκω — twice in GNT, Luke 9:54; Gal. 5:15)
Verb: "consume, destroy,
annihilate" Compound of ἀνά ("up") and ἁλίσκω (possibly means: "capture [an enemy], conquer, catch, seize, kill; convict, condemn").
"Do away with something completely by using up" (BDAG3), like a consuming fire, a destructive relationship. Alternate form:
ἀναλίσκω.
ἀναλώσω, Future
ἀνήλωσα, 1st Aorist
ἀναλωθήσομαι, Future Passive
ἀνηλώθην, 1st Aorist Passive
ἀνήλωμαι, Perfect Passive
ἀναλύω (twice in GNT, Luke 12:36; Philp. 1:23)
So you can see why Isaiah and Daniel is not completely what we call Canonicity.
The Book of Isaiah has multiple authors and that the book comprises three separate collections of oracles: Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), containing the words of Isaiah; Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century BCE author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from Exile.
The Deutero-Isaian part of the book describes how God will make Jerusalem the centre of his worldwide rule through a royal saviour (a messiah) who will destroy her oppressor.
D = author of Deuteronomy, J= the Jahvistic Document of the Hexateuch, J, P= Priest's Code of the Hexateuch
Compare Dt. 1:9-13 to Ex. 18:13:36 or Dt. 10:1-4 to Ex. 25:10; 36:2; 37:1 But in no case is any dependence on P is evident and the general view of D is decidedly not that of P. The relation of D to the code P is very different
Canonicity: This recognition was accorded to the book in the days of Jesus and by Jesus Himself. It has been concurred in by almost the unanimous body of believers. No investigation of a literary historical character can shake its place in the rule of faith.
DANIEL, BOOK OF, APOCRYPHAL ADDITIONS TO: In the Greek text of the Book of Daniel are found the following additions: (1) The Prayer of Azariah and the Thanksgiving of the Three Children in the Fiery Furnace. (2) The History of Susannah. (3) The Story of Bel and the Dragon. The first of these has a much doter relation to the Book of Daniel than the other two.
1.
The Song of the Three Children. This is apocryphal addition of 67 verses to the Book Daniel inserted after 3 23. The title does not express all the contents of the section, for it con also the Prayer of Azariah (1-22), and a brief tive (23-27) of the heating of the furnace, and of coming of the Angel of the Lord to the Codex B has the heading 'The Prayer of and 'Hymn of the Three.' It has been often that the prayer, which is really as if a nation speaking, confessing its past sins and seeking is singularly inappropriate to the circumstances. too the Hymn is quite as unlikely in such a sit It is more like a litany, and seems to be modeled after Ps 136.
Both are unauthentic amplifications of the story in the canonical Dn, that are meant to fill out the account of the miraculous deliverence of the three Hebrews by giving the prayer which them offered, beseeching God for deliverance, and the hymn of praise which they sang when they saw that this prayer was answered. It is entirely unknown who composed them.
Their date also is unknown. They have been preserved for us in the Greek Bible and in the versions made from it.It has been much discussed whether the original of this section was Hebrew or Greek. The question is not easy of settlement, since every extant version is based on the LXX. As yet there is no unaminity in the matter.
2.
The History of Susannah. This apoc addition to the Book of Daniel is entitled in some MSS. 'The Judgment of Daniel.' In Greek and in the Old Latin version it is placed before Dn ch1; in the Vulgate it stands at the end as Dn ch. 13 The Greek text is extant in two recensions, the LXX and that of Theodotion, which differ from each other in some details.
There are also several Syriac versions. The story is as follows:Susannah, the wife of a wealthy Babylonian Jew was accustomed to walk daily in her garden. Two elders, who had been recently appointed judges, becoming enamored of her beauty, concealed themselves one day in the garden and when Susannah was taking her bath suddenly appeared and made shameless proposals to her. Her outcry discovered them, and to save themselves they publicly accused Susannah of adultery with a young man whom they had found in the garden.
The innocent woman was condemned to death, but was saved by Daniel,who by sharp cross-questioning exposed the of the falsity elders and secured their punishment.
This narrative can not be regarded as historical. It is full of improbabilities.
3.
Bel and the Dragon. These are two distinct stories which have been added to the Book of Daniel in the Greek and other versions. They both have as their aim, along with the glorification of D. the exhibition of the emptiness and deception of idolatry. In the story of Bel, Cyrus the Persian king discovers that D. does not worship the Babylonian idol Bel, and calls him to account for his conduct.
D. denies that Bel is a living god, and offers to prove it. The test is to be made in reference to the daily offering of meat and drink which Bel was supposed to consume. If it should be found that these were made away with by other means than by the god himself, then D. was to be honored. Upon the floor of the temple D. had spread a thin coating of fine ashes and after the food had been deposited before the god, the king himself shut and sealed the door .
The next morning when the door was opened the food was gone, but the marks of human feet were upon the pavement. This led to the discovery of a secret door, through which the priests with their wives and children had entered the room. The proof was irrefutable, the false priests were slain, and D. was honored.
In the story of the Dragon the same question was as at issue as to whether it was a living god. Daniel denied it and offered to slay him. The king gave him permission to try, and D. making lumps 'of pitch and fat, and hair' gave them to the dragon whereupon he burst asunder. Babylon was indignant at the death of their god and compelling the king to give up D. cast him into the lion's den, where he was miraculously kept unharmed. The king's wonder at this led him to honor the prophet and to acknowledge the prophet's God.
Neither of these stories, of course, is authentic, but each is framed from material taken from current legends and ideas. The dragon myth had wide circulation. As in the case of the History of Susannah, the two Greek recensions, that of the LXX, and that of Theodotion, differ in details. The original language of these stories has generally been considered to be Greek.
Gaster's discovery of an Aramaic Dragon in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel gives strong support to the few who have an Aramaic original and has started again the question of Aramaic originals for them both, yet a clear decision is not possible. Prof. Davies in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the 0.T. I (1913), gives reasons for rejecting Gaster's view and favors a Heb. original. The Roman and Greek Churches accept these stories as canonical; the Protestant Church holds be apocryphal. J. S. R.—W. G. J.
Pages 168-169 Funk and Wagnalls NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY edited by MELANCTHON W. JACOBUS, D.D. IN ASSOCIATION WITH AMERICAN, BRITISH,
AND GERMAN SCHOLARS