BODY, the trunk with limbs and accessory organs, the entire physical, temporal, spatial and tactual aspect of man. The Bible uses the concept of body in a number of aspects both actual and fig. The ancient Sem. languages do not distinguish the modes of man’s being in the same fashion as mechanistic scientific terminology. Akkadian, Ugaritic, Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic comprehend man as divisible horizontally. They separate between external, how a man appears from outside himself, and internal, how a man appears to himself. The external aspect is known by Heb. שֵׁמ֒, H9005, the chief linguistic indication of this external characteristic is the “name.” This in fact is the usual meaning ascribed to the Sem. term (Gen 2:19, et al.). However, the idea of “character” or even “reputation” is closer to the original (e.g. Exod 3:13). When asked His name by Moses, the Lord answers with a temporal denotation of His sovereignty and then gives a historical reference to His past acts (3:15). The internal aspect is known by the Heb. נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, (meaning “people,” “slaves”). Aram. נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, variously tr. “breath,” “life,” “soul,” “desire,” “self,” “I.” It actually means the living sense of what the individual is to himself (Gen 9:4 vs. 12:13). For this reason there is no term equivalent to “body” as distinguished from “soul” or “spirit.”

I. The concept of body in the OT. The OT uses various names for parts and organs of the body to signify the physical, temporal, spatial and tactual aspect of man. Many of these are used in a complex system of parallel poetic structures where the actual use of the word depends on its “A” or “B” characteristic and its extended meaning. (M. Held, “Additional pairs of words in Synonymous Parallelism in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic,” Leshonenu [1953], 144-160, in Heb.) In the Eng. VSS some ten Heb. words are loosely tr. “body.” In most cases this is incorrect. The terms are:

1. גַּב֒, H1461, גַּו, H1567, גֵּוָה֮, H1576, גְּוִיָּה, H1581. All are derived from the same root which on the basis of texts i.e. 1 Samuel 31:12 seems to mean “back,” “trunk,” “corpse.” There are a number of Akkad. terms for as yet unidentified parts of the body, and the Heb. term may well be related. In Job 13:12 (KJV) this is certainly the case where the form גַּב֒, H1461, appears.

2. בֶּ֫טֶנ֒, H1061, an ancient W Sem. word attested in Amarna Letter 232:10, “ina bantê (glossed) baṭnūma, “on my belly.” M. Held has proven Akkad. bāntu, “rib cage” to be equivalent to Ugaritic-Canaanite, baṭnu (Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography [1965], 406). It is used often in the OT as a euphemism or substitute for the generative organs (Exod 28:4, et al.). In all such passages the rib cage or thorax and the abdomen are intended.

3. גְּשֵׁם, H10151, an Aram word appearing in the Aram. portion of Dan. only, and means some part of the body, possibly “back” in a synecdochal usage.

4. נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, as discussed above, used for the self-conscious personality, tr. “body” in the prohibitions against ritual defilement through contact with the dead (Lev 21:11).

5. עֶ֫צֶמ֒, H6795, a common Sem. term for “bone,” “bony frame=skeleton,” used in this latter sense in Exodus 24:10 (KJV) and Lamentations 4:7.

6. גּוּפָה, H1590, appears only once (1 Chron 10:12), however, the nearly exact parallel text (1 Sam 31:12) reads גְּוִיַּ֣ת, a variation of # 1. above. It may be that the word in 1 Chronicles is simply an orthographic error in transition or transmission of the text. On the other hand, caution must be taken in emendation as it may be simply a root as yet unknown from other sources.

7. בָּשָׂר, H1414, the common Heb. word for “flesh,” ‘meat” (used in Isaiah 10:18) in contrast with nepes, # 4. above, in the distinction “flesh” vs. “spirit.” It appears also in Ezekiel 10:12 (KJV) where it is contrasted with # 1. above, so that the pair is, “flesh” vs. “back” in the sense of frame.

8. שְׁאֵר, H8638, another common word for “flesh” like # 7. above. In KJV it is tr. “body” only in Proverbs 5:11, meaning “meat,” “flesh.” In effect the author of Proverbs expressing the totality of the destruction by contrasting two synonyms, not unlike Eng. “great, big, large” and such expressions.

9. יָרֵכְ, H3751, the common Heb. word for “thigh” (Exod 29:22, 27), used as a euphemism for the generative organs, Judges 14:8 where alone the RSV tr. “body.”

10. נִדְנֶה, H10464, an Aram. term for “shelter,” “sheath” as in Daniel 7:15 its only usage in the OT, KJV tr. “body.” In many passages the above terms are used fig. of cosmological features.

2. The concept of body in the NT. In the language of the NT the distinction of the modes of man’s being accords with our more familiar mechanistic conception. Man is vertically separated into a physical, temporal, spatial, and tactual body vs. a real, metaphysical entity, the soul. Throughout the history of the church expositors have often attempted to associate these OT and NT anthropological distinctions with the current formulations in philosophy. The “body” vs. “soul” distinction was antithesized first in terms of the Gr. form vs. matter scheme, later in the Thomistic medieval notions of grace vs. nature, and in modern times in some Kantian dialectic of ontological vs. phenomenological or I-thou vs. I-it, or even historical vs. mythical and its offshoot, salvation history vs. history. However, all these schemes are manifestly contrary to the semantic and philological intention of the text. The NT uses almost exclusively the Gr. term σῶμα, G5393, to indicate the real, actual, physical body as over against the metaphysical. By extension the word is used even to distinguish the foreshadowed from the fulfilled reality (Col 2:17). It is used for all the words of the OT listed above regularly in the LXX except for # 4. which is only so tr. in Genesis 36:6. It is an old word in Gr. lit. appearing in Homer and ancient inscrs. It is the center of mortal life and all of the human functions—breathing, eating, drinking, etc. In this regard it is the participating member in the grosser sins, murder, adultery, gluttony, etc. However, it must be realized that the NT in no wise adopts the Platonic scheme of good-soul vs. evil-body, as some authorities have proposed. In the NT the soul is not necessarily good or in antagonism to the body (2 Pet 2:8 in contrast to 2:14). The soul like the body is justified through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, by the new birth (1 Pet 1:22, et al.). The uses of the term in visions of the future state do not necessarily imply disembodiment (Rev 16:13). The NT assumes that the dividing of the soul from the body in its vertical orientation constitutes death. This death is the result of sin, iniquity against God which has physical consequences upon the body. The NT also uses the term in the sense of unity and interdependence. Christ and the evangelists continually picture the church and its members as a body with its mutual parts. Of special interest is the fact that in the LXX, the term Gr. σῶμα, G5393, hardly ever equals Heb. נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, while Gr. ψυχή, G6034, “soul” is used for the Heb. term. On the other hand, Gr. πνεῦμα, G4460, is never used for either of the Heb. terms for external or internal “man.” Thus it is totally impossible to equate their usage and any sensible idea of their meaning in the Bible must rest alone on their specific semantic value in particular passages. The Gr. χρώς, G5999, occurs only in Acts 19:12, and is standard Gr. for “skin,” “outer body surface.”

Bibliography H. Holma, “Die Namen der Körperteile im Assyrisch-Babylonischen,” Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia (1913); Sarja B, Nid. VII, 1-185; A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (1964), 198-204; cf. The author’s review, WTJ, XXVIII 2, [1966], 174-179; H. van Riessen, Mondigheid ne de Machten (1967).