Person concept missing in Lexham Theological Wordbook?

Hamilton Ramos said:

Yet when I go to the Lexham Theological Wordbook, the term "Person" is not to be found.

Is there a reason for that?

Presumably because the Wordbook is focused on helping the reader to understand biblical terms and concepts and not all terms are included.

Organization

The entries for the Lexham Theological Wordbook are organized around an English headword or semantic domain.1 Unlike most lexicons that organize by lemma and then delineate all known meanings of a lemma within a single entry, our articles are organized first according to semantic domain,2 then as individual lemmas from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. The articles describe the concept represented by the domain and explain the words and idioms that inform that concept.

Douglas Mangum et al., eds., Lexham Theological Wordbook, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).

Hamilton Ramos said:

Should it be called then the Lexham Biblical Theology Wordbook instead?

I don't think so as it isn't really exploring biblical theology - it is trying to explain key words and concepts used in the biblical languages. The announcement at https://community.logos.com/forums/t/92666.aspx explains what it is trying to do.

Hamilton Ramos said:

I am not an expert, but I would imagine that the concept of Person should be in the Bible and be of dire importance, since it affects all of us humans

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying that we should only treat the concept of Person as important if it is actually in the Bible or are you saying something else?

Note it is the Lexham Theological WORDBOOK and as such is deliberately restricted to the Biblical words. For a theological definition giving the meaning at a particular point in time to a particular group of theologians, you need to go to your theological DICTIONARY but I find few have an entry for "person" e.g.

[quote]

Person (Lat. “actor’s mask”). The word originally employed to designate the role someone plays on the stage or in life, and then applied to a subsistent, rational individual. Boethius (ca. 480–ca. 524) classically defined person as “rationalis naturae individua substantia” (Lat. “an individual substance of rational nature”). Applied to the Trinity, this definition might imply three centers of reason, thus conflicting with orthodox belief of one reason held in common by the three divine persons. Over the centuries, various aspects of what it is to be a person were explicitated or added: relationship, incommunicability, self-consciousness, freedom, duties, inalienable rights, and dignity. For Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), the human person is an absolute that may never be used as a means, but must always be respected as a moral end-initself. Today, to overcome the notion of persons as autonomous selves, some stress the way persons are always persons-in-relationship, constituted through relations with other persons and the environment. See Hypostasis; I and Thou; Immanent Trinity; Personalism; Persons of the Trinity; Prosopon.

Gerald O’Collins and Edward G. Farrugia, A Concise Dictionary of Theology (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2013), 194–195.

[quote]

Person, Personhood. The biblical view of humanity is critical to our understanding of the Scriptures and God. Anthropology is an essential element of theology. Man-talk and God-talk are closely related and only possible as they are related one to the other. Themes such as sin, grace, faith, redemption, and the church must not only be viewed from the God-side, but also from the human side. While God is absolute in the Old Testament, he revealed his Godness through his contact with humans in words and deeds. In the incarnation in the New Testament he is completely defined.
Now this is not to suggest that the human being is the measure of all things. Anthropocentric concerns must not so dominate theology that its focus is the nature of the human being, rather than the character of God. But there is real danger when the consideration of anthropology is pursued in isolation quite apart from theology. It is critical that anthropology be considered from a biblical perspective. Human preoccupation results in narcissism. The question of what human beings are must be answered biblically.
The creation account of Genesis 1 portrays human beings as part of the material world created by God. As such they have solidarity with the natural order and a creature relationship to God. This is the emphasis of Psalm 8, in which the human being is seen as a little lower than God, but crowned with glory and honor.
The boundary lines between humans and God on the one hand, and that between humans and nature on the other hand are never violated. Humans can only have a proper understanding of themselves as they have a proper understanding of God. This results in self-awareness, in a creature consciousness—but not in a debasing sense. As uniquely created in God’s image, humans are his agents ruling over and caring for the earth.
Commonality with all other creation gives humans their earthiness. They are embedded in creation, but they are not only in nature, they are also over nature. While they are a part of nature they are apart from nature. They not only have solidarity with nature, but transcendence over it. Not only do they have a special relationship to God, they also have one with other humans.
It is exceedingly difficult to systematize biblical anthropology since the Bible does not set out to present an encyclopedic treatment of it. At best, reference to it seems to be incidental and informal.
This effort to understand humankind biblically is further complicated by the multiplicity of terms such as heart, soul, spirit, and body, which, while having distinct meaning, are frequently used interchangeably in Scripture. Stereotyped translation of Hebrew words is not wise or possible.
The development of a biblical anthropology is also complicated by the movement of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek world and language. The Septuagint translations of the Hebrew terms has led in the false direction of a dichotomic or even an trichotomic anthropology, in which body, soul, and spirit stand in contrast and conflict. The “wholeness” of the human being in Semitic thought gives way to a more fractionalized consideration of the person.
Terminology. While the word ʾādām can indicate the first man, it is most generally generic, designating humankind. The etymology of this word is uncertain. It should be distinguished from Hebrew words of gender. It is this word that is associated with the image of God (Gen. 1:26), depicting human dominion over the nonhuman world. Even after the fall, ʾādām is used of humankind. The image of God is still the distinctive.
Another Hebrew word used for humankind is ʾĕnôsû. This represents the weakness or mortality of humanity, although such an understanding may be more attributable to theology rather than etymology.
The Greek counterpart of the Hebrew ʾādām is anthrōpos. This too is a generic term, used without sex distinction. It depicts humanity in contrast to animals and provides us with the English word “anthropology.” Implicit in this term is an acknowledgment of humanity’s finiteness and creatureliness.
The Nature of Humankind. A careful study of biblical words and expressions used for the person need to be made to facilitate our understanding of humankind.
Soul. This is the traditional English translation of the Hebrew word nepeš, but most generally it refers to the person as a needy/longing creature rather than to some indestructible spiritual substance. Such is observable in Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, where the qualified (living) nepeš refers to animals and is rendered “living creatures.” Thus this term is not reserved for human beings and when used of a person it does not so much suggest what a person has as what a person is. This term is even used where nepeš is detached from the concept of life and simply designates a corpse.
Nepeš is often used to express physical needs such as hunger (Deut. 12:20; 1 Sam. 2:16) and thirst (Prov. 25:25). It can be used of excessive desires (gluttony—Prov. 23:2) and of unfulfilled desires (barrenness—1 Sam. 1:15). Volitional/spiritual yearning is also assigned to the nepeš such as the desire for God (Ps. 42:1–2) and justice (Isa. 26:8–9), but also for evil (Prov. 21:10) and political power (2 Sam. 3:21).
The counterpart to nepeš in the New Testament is psychē. It is difficult to draw hard and fast lines between the various meanings of this many-sided Greek word. It can mean “life” of a particular person or animal (Matt. 2:20; Mark 10:45; John 10:11; Rom. 11:3) or person (Acts 27:37) or be reflexive, designating the self (Luke 12:19). There are passages where psychē stands in contrast to body (sōma) and there it seems to refer to an immortal part of man (Matt. 10:28). Nevertheless, on the whole, in the New Testament soul retains its basic Hebrew meaning.
Flesh. The Hebrew word bāśār so rendered, represents that which humans share in common with the animal world. While bāśār stands primarily for the visible part of the body, it is also used to designate the body as a whole. Hebrew has no word for body, but the frequency with which bāśār is so translated suggested that this term often served in that capacity. That these uses refer to a body can be seen in the treatment that bāśār received: anointed, washed, clothed, cut, pained, and in particular in its capacity to thirst, tremble, faint, and grow weary. These latter qualities show that bāśār can also indicate the whole person.
Thus, common Old Testament anthropological thought holds that a human being is a body, rather than having a body. The distinctions between soul and body are minimized. A human being is an animated body rather than an incarnated soul. The body is none other than the soul in its outward form, allowing the various parts of the body to think and act as representations of the soul.
While weakness is associated with bāśār in the Old Testament, there is no indication that it is a source of evil. This is in contrast to the New Testament where flesh is the locus of sin and the term “fleshly” becomes virtually synonymous with “sinful.”
The Greek word for body is sōma. While it can designate the physical entity, it is often used as a comprehensive term for the whole person. Such a holistic definition of sōma is widely accepted today. This view minimizes dualism where the body and soul oppose each other and it advocates unity. This unity is not to be seen as monadic, denying either the corporeal or the incorporeal side of the person.
Spirit. The Hebrew word so rendered is rûaḥ. Its basic meaning is “wind” or “breath” and by extension comes to mean “strength”—the vital power necessary to sustain life. The spirit that animates man comes from God. It can be crushed (Ps. 34:18), necessitating the Lord to save, or it can be taken back, causing the person to return to dust (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29). These latter verses suggest that the person’s spirit and God’s are virtually inseparable.
If the concept of “body” associates human beings with the animals and suggests weakness, the concept of “spirit” stresses the affinity we have for God and stresses power. While nepes̄ pertains to God in a few instances and bāśār never applies to God, rûaḥ is used more often of God than humans. Thus, the human spirit calls out for its divine complement, while God desires worshipers who will worship in spirit and truth. It is the spirit that provides the energy and capacity to worship.
This term is also used to indicate the dominant impulse or disposition of a person so that the text can speak of bitterness of spirit (Gen. 26:35), spirit of jealousy (Num. 5:14, 30), broken spirit (Exod. 6:9), right spirit (Ps. 51:10), and a “generous spirit” (Ps. 51:12). In Numbers 14:24 Caleb is distinguished from the others by his attitude—“different spirit.”
Spirit can also refer to the life center of the body. This is seen in Ecclesiastes 3:18–21 where a comparison is made between the spirit of a person and the spirit of a beast. When the rûaḥ departs mortals return to the earth. The rûaḥ returns to God who gave it.
Heart. The Hebrew word lēb is the most common Old Testament term for the person. Its traditional translation “heart” has hidden its meaning, since our present understanding of the term has but little of its biblical meaning.
The Old Testament has little interest in anatomy. No connection is made in the Old Testament between the heart and the beating of the pulse.
Upon learning of his wife’s approach to David, Nabal’s heart dies and became like stone, but he continued to live for ten more days (1 Sam. 25:37–38). Obviously this refers to his emotions not to his physical heart. The whole spectrum of emotions is attributed to the heart—positive emotions like love, loyalty, joy, comfort and negative ones like grief, envy, anger.
Thought functions are also attributed to the heart where lēb is better translated “mind.” Wisdom and understanding are located in the heart. The heart is the seat of the will, so that a decision can be described as “setting” the heart (2 Chron. 12:14).
Thus, lēb in its more abstract meaning refers to the inner or immaterial part of the human being, being, in fact, the most frequently used word and the richest.
The Greek word kardia in the New Testament also includes the mental, moral, rational, and emotional elements of human nature. While “soul” and “spirit” deal with the essence of a human being, “heart” reflects the qualitative—the matter of character.
Other Functions. A survey of the above four terms reveals the absence of a variety of English terms and functions we associate with personhood. Rational functions are frequently assigned to the heart (lēb) that we would ascribe to the head, and more precisely to the brain, the mind. Lack of heart in the Old Testament does not mean coldness of feeling, but lack of thought (Prov. 10:13). The “wise heart” (Ps. 90:12) indicates intelligence.
The conscience is also associated with the heart. This is clearly seen in the statement: “Afterward David was conscience-stricken for having cut off a corner of his [Saul’s] robe” (1 Sam. 24:5). The cry for a “clean heart” in Psalm 51:10 is a plea for a pure conscience.
Another function of personhood—will—is related to both the heart (lēb) and spirit (rûaḥ). In “planning the heart” (Prov. 16:19) the emphasis is not only upon understanding, but execution, an activity of the will. Sometimes spirit indicates will, such as in Ezra 1:5, where reference is made to the exiles whose spirit God had stirred up to go up to rebuild the temple.
Relationship among Persons. That human relations are critical to a person’s wholeness is seen in the creation account of Genesis, when God created persons male and female, and in Genesis 2 where the divine assessment is that “it is not good” for the man to be alone—a partner is necessary. Singularity is not good. Even as there is diversity (trinity) within unity in the Godhead so there is unity within diversity in humanity. Maleness and femaleness are basic to humanity.
Human relationship in the Old Testament goes beyond marriage. The life of the individual Israelite was always integrated in the bonds of the family. The elimination process in Joshua 7:16–18 that finally isolated Achan reflects this solidarity.
This solidarity is referred to as corporate personality. While individual value, worth, and responsibility are recognized in the Old Testament, there is no tendency to the rugged individualism of Western culture. Rather in the Old Testament the individual was able to implicate the entire nation either in blessing or judgment and a single person such as the king could represent the whole nation as if it were an individual.
While to stand alone was viewed negatively as an affliction (Ps. 25:16–17) and an occasion for taunting (Ps. 102:6–8), there are individuals who are singled out, who stand alone, but not for their own benefit, but for that of the group such as Abraham and Moses.
The concept of solidarity is continued in the New Testament. Individual distinctions are lost since “you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). The representation of the church under the metaphor of the body also stresses unity: “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1 Cor. 12:12–13).
Conclusion. In this consideration of the person two tensions stand out.
First, should the person be viewed as a unity or a duality? Scriptural evidence can be advanced for both of these positions. This would call for caution. The individual, on the one hand, must not be fragmented or disassembled. On the other hand, the material and the immaterial must not be so homogenized that there is a denial of either materiality or spirituality.
The second tension is individualism versus corporate solidarity. Again scriptural evidence can be presented for both realities. The oscillation of Scripture, the ready movement between the I and the we, demands a careful balance between them.
CARL SCHULTZ

See also SOUL; SPIRIT; WILL.

Bibliography. W. Dryness, Themes in Old Testament Theology; R. H. Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology; R. Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms; N. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament.

Carl Schultz, “Person, Personhood,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, electronic ed., Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 602–604.

[quote]

person. Used of humans to denote a living being with the capacity for freedom, consciousness and relationships; of God as similarly yet preeminently personal; and of the three members of the Trinity. When referring to the triune personhood of God, person does not have any similarity to the contemporary psychological understanding, nor does it connote three separate Gods. Instead, the trinitarian persons are relational in their personhood.

Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 90–91.

[quote]

person (Gr. prosōpon, Lat. persona) Boethius (c. 480–524) defined person as “an individual substance of a rational nature.” Contemporary theologians emphasize the relational nature of personhood. The three “persons” of the Trinity relate freely, equally, and in full love with one another. See Trinity, doctrine of the.

Donald K. McKim, The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 235.

That is it and I do have a reasonably expansive library.

Hamilton Ramos said:

guide further study

also see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/ especially the supplementary article History of Trinitarian Doctrines which is probably nearly all you need.

Hamilton Ramos said:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in L8 format? looks like a great addition if is possible.

One can put a link to it on the short-cut bar.