SuttaCentral
What is the difference between “self” and “being” in the suttas? I’ve never seen self defined precisely in the canon, but “being” is said to be:
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perception, fabrication, or consciousness, Rādha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being.’
SN 23:2; Satta Sutta
In my opinion, it’s because from MN2: if we direct our attention to such question as yours, we got trapped to wrong views 
“What are the things unfit for attention that he attends to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire arises in him and the arisen taint of sensual desire increases, the unarisen taint of being arises in him and the arisen taint of being increases, the unarisen taint of ignorance arises in him and the arisen taint of ignorance increases. These are the things unfit for attention that he attends to. And what are the things fit for attention that he does not attend to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire does not arise in him and the arisen taint of sensual desire is abandoned, the unarisen taint of being does not arise in him and the arisen taint of being is abandoned, the unarisen taint of ignorance does not arise in him and the arisen taint of ignorance is abandoned. These are the things fit for attention that he does not attend to. By attending to things unfit for attention and by not attending to things fit for attention, both unarisen taints arise in him and arisen taints increase.
“This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’
“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’ This speculative view, bhikkhus, is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; he is not freed from suffering, I say.
I suggest it’s best to leave such question aside. 
Generally speaking they’re the same thing. It means seeing the parts for the whole and assuming it to be a separate entity that is born and dies.
Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There’s the convention ‘a being.’It’s only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.
Beings must be born and must die, this is why bhava precedes birth. However if someone, like the Buddha, does not fabricate a being in his mind, then he is not born nor dies.
“When asked, ‘Are you a deva?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a deva.’ When asked, ‘Are you a gandhabba?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.’ When asked, ‘Are you a yakkha?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.’ When asked, ‘Are you a human being?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a human being.’ Then what sort of being are you?”
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba… a yakkha… a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
So a self is the construct/fabrication of that being
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being ‘I am,’ there comes to be ‘I am here,’ there comes to be ‘I am like this’ … ‘I am otherwise’ … ‘I am bad’ … ‘I am good’ … ‘I might be’ … ‘I might be here’ … ‘I might be like this’ … ‘I might be otherwise’ … ‘May I be’ … ‘May I be here’ … ‘May I be like this’ … ‘May I be otherwise’ … ‘I will be’ … ‘I will be here’ … ‘I will be like this’ … ‘I will be otherwise.’ These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.
If one does not fabricate a being in their mind, then they do not assume themselves as the 5 aggregates. If you know dependent origination then you no longer fabricate a self because you know that things aren’t born/caused by a self but instead from their own causes and conditions. How can a made up thing cause things? Impossible. Someone who is ignorant believes the self is the cause of things.
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving… That feeling… That contact… That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. It is by knowing & seeing in this way that one without delay puts an end to the effluents.
"Or he doesn’t assume form to be the self, but he assumes the self as possessing form… form as in the self… self as in form… or feeling to be the self… the self as possessing feeling… feeling as in the self… self as in feeling… or perception to be the self… the self as possessing perception… perception as in the self… self as in perception… or fabrications to be the self… the self as possessing fabrications… fabrications as in the self… self as in fabrications… or consciousness to be the self… the self as possessing consciousness… consciousness as in the self… self as in consciousness.
"Now that assumption is a fabrication. What is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by the feeling born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving… That feeling… That contact… That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. It is by knowing & seeing in this way that one without delay puts an end to the effluents.
However the habituation of “I am” is very hard to uproot
Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, still, in relation to the five aggregates subject to clinging, there lingers in him a residual conceit ‘I am,’ a desire ‘I am,’ an underlying tendency ‘I am’ that has not yet been uprooted. Sometime later he dwells contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging: ‘Such is form, such its origin, such its passing away; such is feeling … such is perception … such are volitional formations … such is consciousness, such its origin, such its passing away.’ As he dwells thus contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging, the residual conceit ‘I am,’ the desire ‘I am,’ the underlying tendency ‘I am’ that had not yet been uprooted—this comes to be uprooted.
The self changes during the long process of non attachment as a snake sheds its skin in stages:
"We must recall here that it is attachment to these five aggregates that has to be given up and that this is a gradual process. We must not expect our habitual likes and dislikes, our intellectual enjoyments and our desires to vanish all at once; nor can or should they be broken by force. This seemingly compact and identifiable personality has been gradually built up by the intake of physical and mental nourishment. Again and again, thousands of times during a single day, we have approached and absorbed the physical and mental objects of our desire. One after the other we have made them “our own” and believed them to be our own. This continuous process of accumulating attachments and self-identifications must now be reversed by a gradual process of detachment achieved by dissolving or stopping the false identifications. The Buddha’s teaching chiefly consists of aids assisting us in that task of gradual detachment — aids to right living and to right thinking. The simile of the snake’s worn- out skin is one of these aids, and if seen as such it has much to teach. "—Sn 1.1, Nyanaponika
Nissatto, Nijjivo and Anatta seems like same.
“self” in the EBT’s is usually used in the context of views about an agent or subject of experience, so it has more of a philosophical flavor in the EBT’s than does being, or body, or person. self is not defined in the canon because it is rejected as a concept entirely, any view of self at all is said to be a wrong view. the basic idea being rejected is more like a “watcher” outside of all my experiences of embodiment and so on who is the “real” me, self is probably not quite strong enough in English but the often offered alternative of “soul” is probably a bit too strong.
Hope that helps.
Metta
The difficulty, i think, is that the Buddha sees all from first person perspective. From first person perspective seen, you are only a being, i think, while there is me and mine-making of the khandha’s.
It is like you have no face, and than, while me and mine-making, you get a face. You become someone.
But are you someone? Is this not what is going on all the time. From a kind of undetermined, unbecome state, not this not that, we arrive in a certain state based on me and mine-making.
I think “self” (atta) is synonymous with “identity” (sakkaya) in the suttas. Identity is defined in SN 38.15 as the five clinging aggregates (pancupadanakkandha).
For an exploration of “self”, we have a fine exploration of the nuances of the conceit “I am”:
SN22.89:9.3: “Reverend Khemaka, when you say ‘I am’, what is it that you’re talking about?
For an exploration of “being” beyond the quoted SN23.2, we have AN9.24, which explores “sentient being”:
AN9.24:0.3: Abodes of Sentient Beings
AN9.24:1.1: “Mendicants, there are nine abodes of sentient beings.
…
AN9.24:9.1: There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of nothingness. They have been reborn in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.
AN9.24:9.2: This is the ninth abode of sentient beings.
Beyond sentience there is:
AN8.66:8.1: Going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, they enter and remain in the cessation of perception and feeling.
AN8.66:8.2: This is the eighth liberation.
Notice that these explanations allow for sentient beings without the conceit “I am”
The assumption of a “being” looks very similar to the assumption of a self. In both cases, there is the assumption of a “me”, the assumption of an identity in or “behind” the aggregates.
Being (puggala) is what is born, consisting of mind and body (pancakhanda). In this case being is a consequence of the existence of the potential for lust (tanha) so that there is emergence (bhava) and birth (jati).
Self (atta) is the illusion of not understanding mental and physical reality. Because it has not penetrated reality as it is with wisdom, the illusion arises about the existence of a self.
Can’t we consider Atta as the first person while Satta is third person?