I picked up a brief book by Daniel Boyarin titled The Jewish Gospels. I am about a little under halfway through and find it engaging. Boyarin points out that post-exilic, pre-rabbinic Judaism was complex. There was not a single Judaism but a variety of Judaisms. Boyarin highlights this when he says:
. . . [T]here were many Jews both in Palestine and outside of it, in places such a Alexandria in Egypt, who had very different ideas about what being a good, devout Jew meant. Some believed that in order to be a kosher Jew you had to believe in a single divine figure and any other belief was simply idol worship. Others believed that God had a divine deputy or emissary or even son, exalted above all the angels, who functioned as an intermediary between God and the world in creation, revelation, and redemption. . . . Thus the basic underlying thoughts from which . . . the Trinity . . . grew are there in the very world into which Jesus was born and in which he was first written about in the Gospels of Mark and John. (Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ [New York: The New Press, 2012], 5–6)
The idea of the Trinity then is not, as some have argued, something that is foreign to the thought of the biblical writers. Sure, the creedal formulations of the fourth and subsequent centuries have a more Greco-philosophical feel to them but the content that they express are biblical and not un-Jewish.
To take it a step further, the two contrasting groups that Boyarin mentions are likely similar to those in the historical situation that Paul N. Anderson finds in 1 John 2:18–25. This passage describes two sets of antichrists: strict monotheists Jewish Christians and docetists. Applicable to this discussion is the first set that sought to revert back to a strict version of monotheistic Judaism, similar to that of the first group mentioned by Boyarin, because they claimed that the Christians who believe in the Father and the Son, the belief of Boyarin’s second group, actually believe in ditheism.
For those who would like to further pursue the subject, you may find of interest Daniel Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” Harvard Theological Review 94, no. 3 (July 2001): 243–84.
You may read Paul Anderson on the antichrists in 1 John and on Revelation in Paul Anderson on Revelation — Session 1.
___
UPDATE: Boyarin’s “The Gospel of the Memra” is available here, courtesy of his webpage at University of California Berkeley.
the archives near Emmaus 
John
To equate these early beliefs with the concept of the trinity is false. You can’t even hardly find an equal in the pagan world with 3 equal gods. While Judaism claims to be monotheistic they are not and never have been. They are and were in fact strict unitarian in regard to the Most High . I do agree that some of these early beliefs morphed into the trinity with help from Plato,Philo and Justin.
Robert: I appreciate how you can dismiss what Boyarin says by simply making assertions. Take a look at Boyarin’s “The Gospel of the Memra.” Do you think the doctrine of the Trinity speaks of three equal gods?
I was a bit taken by the abrupt, non-supported statements in Robert’s post as well.
Robert, do you mind unpacking what you mean by “You can’t even hardly find an equal in the pagan world with 3 equal gods”? Also, what do you mean that Judaism isn’t monotheistic, but unitarian?
John
One God ,3 equal persons same thing.
I have read all of the extra biblical text of judaism including the aramaic OT.
If what is in his book is what you wrote then yes I can dismiss. Judaism claims monotheism but they believe in a lessor YHWH. Israeliteism believed Wisdom was the first created by the Elyon and believed She was the Mother of all things living.
Brian
Monotheism is the belief in only One God,One Person God and no lessor gods
Unitarianism is the belief in one Most High God ,the Creator but doesnt deny lessor gods.
Polytheism believes in many gods or many persons in one god.
Henotheism believe in many gods of many ranks
Robert: You’ll forgive me if I don’t take your dismissals every seriously. Anyone can read anything but that doesn’t mean the person’s reading or comprehension is accurate. That’s why if you’d like to deal with Boyarin in any meaningful way, I suggested his article. One God, three persons ≠ 3 equal gods; you can check the Athanasian creed for a fuller exposition on that. You also said, “If what is in his book is what you wrote.” Seeing that I’ve provided the citation for the quote and made sure the quote was accurate, there is no if. I also disagree with your definitions but I appreciate that you provided them so that I can see where you’re coming from.
John
I have studied this creed which contradicts itself forwards and backwards in common sense.
In what way is my definitions wrong, is it because I forgot to mention your claim that Judaism was ditheistic which really is true if you understand they were strict unitarians in the aspect of the Elyon
Robert
You used those terms uniquely. Usually, monotheism means there is one deity alone which exists. Henotheism means that while there is multiple gods, there is fidelity to one god only. Unitarianism has been used to present all gods and religions as essentially the same. Only one of your words matches common use: polytheism.
As to one god, three persons, may I ask who you’ve read? Tertuallian? Origen? Athanasius? The Cappodocians? Augustine? These thinkers worked hard to explain their view of one god who is Father, Son, Spirit. You may disagree with them, but to denounce their views as tritheistic is a sign you haven’t interacted with them. You my not find one god compatible with Father, Son, Spirit, but that doesn’t mean tritheism.
As to studying the creed (which creed?) “forwards to backwards” I don’t know how this is a boast if you mean the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed since that may take all of thirty minutes to study “forwards to backwards” if you haven’t taken the time to read the writings of the people who influenced the formation of the Creed.
“As to one god, three persons, may I ask who you’ve read? Tertuallian? Origen? Athanasius? The Cappodocians? Augustine? These thinkers worked hard to explain their view of one god who is Father, Son, Spirit. ”
Brian
I have thoroughly read and reread all these , yet I cant see Any sense in their explanations .
“You my not find one god compatible with Father, Son, Spirit, but that doesn’t mean tritheism.”
John actually used the term ditheist to describe certain aspects of judaism yet you follow a concept that claims the Father is God,Son is God and HG is God yet there is not 3 Gods. This statement is the definition of contradiction as is every claim in this creed or later creeds
“As to studying the creed (which creed?) “forwards to backwards””
I said it was contradictory forwards and backwards not that I studied it that way but using a figure of speech you could say that in my studies of it I have.
Israel is the epitome for this consideration. They prefer rabbinical pronouncements and studies. The Bible must be divine direction, divinely preserved for purpose or it is no more than a culture’s mysticism and philosophy fit only for understanding a peoples’ course in history. Kabbalah studies then are woefully neglected and Paul was a genuine heretic. Trinity is correctly identified as doctrine that must be adjoined to biblical text.
Robert
If you’ve studied these figures as you claim, and you find their doctrine illogical, then you are not alone. Many agree. Nevertheless, I am surprised that you dogmatically maintain that these thinkers are tritheist. Their contemporaries brought this charge and these thinkers answered it. It seems to me that in the rejection of their conclusions you mix denying the truth of their argument with reinterpreting the content of it (or that you have conflated the process of their thinking with the direction of their argument). In other words, you aren’t claiming that they are wrong, merely, but that they are wrong and what they say they mean they don’t mean (or that what they are struggling to say is nullified by their inability to say it with precision you find satisfactory). You have the right to this position, but it makes me skeptical that you have given their writings the attention that you claim to have given them, at least without having engaged them from anything other that a purely polemic posture.
Bob
The “biblical texts” (i.e., canon) is a doctrine that must be adjoined to biblical texts. We need to be careful when denying that something isn’t “biblical” because it isn’t stated directly in the Bible. Many who deny the Trinity on these grounds ignore that our cherished Christology has the same problem. Even more ironic, our canon has this problem, lest their is a canonical list somewhere in the Bible of which I am unaware, and then it is merely circular, right?
Brian
Actually I never used the term tritheist but guess it might apply to a few claims in these creeds just as monotheistic might apply to a few claims and ditheistic might apply to the HG proceeds from both the Father and Son.
I read for understanding of certain beliefs not found in the bible for the purpose understanding why they are believed. It is hard for me to reject something unless I understand the circumstances it was formed under..
Robert, one guy that (seemingly) unpacks Boyarin well (along with others) is Michael Heiser who Brian introduce me to. While I’m not in completed agreement with Heiser, I have come to similar conclusions as he, though not nearly wo well articulated.
That said, and notwithstanding your criticisms of ‘trinitarianism’ as a doctrine, that this post starts with Daniel Boyarin means its not about the Christian concept of ‘Trinity’, but about the pre-Christian ‘Israelite’ proto-concept of a plurelistic mono-theistic God which is compatible with the Trinity, not at all the stereo-typical absolutist monotheism that was invented (by Jews) in response to Christianity. This is what JohnDave is alluding to indirectly when he writes “Boyarin points out that in post-exilic, pre-rabbinic Judaism was complex“.
For example, Judaism held complex views of God which saw God as omnipresent yet represented him co-equally (and coterminally) as localized. For example, Adam and Eve heard God ‘walking’ in the Garden [Gen 3:8]. How can this be if God is omnipresent? The same question applies to the Spirit of God who hovered over the face of the water. Hebrew notions of God also had YHWH and the distinct but equal personification of the name of YHWH (as well as the personification od Wisdom, etc). Whether or not you accept the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea of divine plurality is absolutely rooted in the Hebrew bible, and its treatment there not in conflict with the monotheism of its writers. Whether or not you hold to a Trinity, these elements of pre-Christian Israelite doctrine must be contended with these pluralisms (YHWH speaking in first and third person, personification of attributes of YHWH, etc); they beg explanation.
For examples of this plauralistic YHWH for example see:
[Gen 19:24] where YHWH rains down fire on Sodom … from YHWH …. (So reference to two YHWH)
[Amos 4:11] where the speaker YHWH (in the 1st person) references YHWH in the third person saying “‘I overthrew some of you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah …”
[Exo 23:20-22] has the angel of YHWH in whom resides the name of YHWH
[Exo 3:2] has an angel of YHWH in the bush, but [Exo 3:4] has YHWH there, so is the angel of YHWH, YHWH?
Etc.
I’m not trying to address your scepticism about the Trinity, but I am trying to bring the discussion back to the real issues beneath JohnDaves reaction to Boyarin. If Boyarin is right, your idea of monotheism is a relatively modern construct (and thus not a good reason to reject a pluralistic monotheism) and your issue is not with Christian Trinitarianism, but a more ancient Israelite theodicity.
Andrew
I am very familiar with the works of Michael Heiser. His research is very deep into ancient beliefs. I do not adhere to his beliefs or understandings. I do see Plurality and unity in the Elohim but not equality. I do see the title YHWH being assigned to the Creator who has never been seen but also to agents. Actually I could be describe as ditheistic with concerns with ancient Israel but not equals. I could be considered tritheistic with concerns with post resurrection christianity but again not equals.
But I believe in only ONE uncreated Most High El and have never be persuaded by anyone to forsake this
Robert, thanks. I didn’t presume to know who you were familiar with, but I appreciate that you do know Heiser (who I didn’t until recently). Also, I have no objections with your claim there is only one uncreated most High. I think there is also room for discussion about differentiation between God outside of time and God within (God as creator and God’s manifestation as creature)
But I still have to ask, so when you read [Exo 3:2-4] you don’t see the angel of YHWH being equated to YHWH? Who’s in the bush?
Again, do you agree the name of YHWH (who was distinct, but the localization of YHWH) was equal to YHWH? I’m thinking of [Psa 20:1,6-7]
[Psa 20:1] “May YHWH answer you in the day of trouble!
May the name of the God of Jacob protect you!”
[Psa 20:6] “Now I know that YHWH saves his anointed;”
[Psa 20:7] “Some trust in chariots and some in horses,
but we trust in the name of YHWH our God.”
Notice that YHWH is the Israelite God, but so is ‘the name of YHWH’ – thus suggesting som type of parity.
Andrew
I see the title of YHWH as just that,a title. I see it concerning Israel seeing this title was not revealed before Moses even though Moses uses it in the account of Genesis .I see Wisdom as the first created and the feminine in the plural of Elohim. I believe she was the lessor YHWH most of the time. I believe Adam’s wife was named after her.
I believe Yahshua was raised for the purpose of ruling as the El while the Elohim rest their Sabbath again during the millennium something which was probably done by lucifer the first week and was to be done during the millennium by Adam till he sinned. I think after the millennium Yahshua returns this authority back to the Elohim, something lucifer was reluctant to do after the first Sabbath.
The name of YHWH wasn’t treated textually as just a title, or at least it appears to many to be the case.
[Exo 23:20-22] has the name of YHWH having a voice, having adversaries, leading Israelites, and YHWH speaks of Him in the third person …
I agree that Wisdom was also personified .. and seen as feminine, though would argue it isn’t clear if this was intended or not, or merely an automatic artifact of the language (‘wisdom’ being feminine in Hebrew).
With respect to the rest .. (Elohim resting on Sabbaths, the vesting of authority in Yahshua, Lucifer, etc.) you’re alluding to notions, theologies, I’m not familiar with. I suspect you have other ideas developed around your view, but whether you do or not, the question is whether the text supports plurality of persons in the God-head (to employ Christian vocabulary), and if so whether these persons share parity.
I think so.
The distinct person of ‘the name of YHWH’ is even clearer in [Isa 30:27-28]
“Behold, the name YHWH comes from afar, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke; his lips are full of fury, and his tongue is like a devouring fire; his breath is like an overflowing stream that reaches up to the neck;”
There seems to be frequently repeated this anthropomorphic language about ‘the name of YHWH’, or YHWH localized.
In the OT text, the wisdom, the name and the word are all personified as Yahweh’s “co regent” at times.
Mike Heiser to me has done the best work on this. He demonstrates how the OT has a Divine council as pagans did. They had a “top god” and a co regent created god below there( and this of course changes with combat scenes, etc).
The difference is in the Hebrew bible, the co regent is also Yahweh, yet, He is different from Yahweh.
The Divine council is an important motif and it is in the NT . Instead of invisible and visible Yahweh in the OT, we have God and His Lamb in the NT or Father and Son in the NT or God and His only begotten, etc. Always the co regent. Always the same, yet different.
Andrew
I believe you hanging on the term name. Titles also receive names . Presidents are called President and Kings are called King.
Eliyah ‘s Name and many others like Yahshua are a statement much like YHWH is .
“With respect to the rest .. (Elohim resting on Sabbaths, the vesting of authority in Yahshua, Lucifer, etc.) you’re alluding to notions, ”
Andrew
These are not notions , they are clear in several verses such as in Ezekiel ,Hebrews ,2Peter and Revelation .Presuming Yahshua pre-existed is a notion not supported in the bible unless John the baptist also pre-existed his creation in the womb of a woman. Who ever compiled John added most of it and Paul keys on the Anointer which was first created almost as much as he does the Anointed
1 Corinthians 15:24 also
Patrick
The only problem with your theory of NT co regent is we have the Father,Holy Spirit and after resurrection we have a declared Son. Yahshua was born to human parents,adopted by The Theos which may or may not be the Elohim . May be just the Elyon or May be both Elyon and Eloah..But it is without a doubt from my reading of the bible that Yahshua came into existance born of Mary .
Robert,
My understanding of the OT text is different from your’s.
Generally in that text, all the terms we have, El Elyon, EL, Elohim, El Shaddai, Adonai = the creator God of the Jews.
The One monotheistic God.
YHWH is His name in the text. I think there is enough evidence that there are 2 separate YHWH’s in the text to think Jesus pre existed as YHWH in visible form, when He was born that was the beginning of His humanity only .
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Tacoma.htm ( no audio)
http://www.twopowersinheaven.com/materials.htm
Patrick
I do see 2 YHWH’s but there is absolutely no evidence to support Yahshua being the visible, just very broad assumptions . Yahshua was indwelled by The Holy Spirit(Anointer) at his Baptism being Anointed Priest,Prophet and King by the Christ(Anointer). In the vision of John in Rev 5 Yahshua is still kept by The Holy Spirit.There was only 3 days since his baptism he was not indwelled which was thefrom the moment he cried out before he died to the first of light of the Sabbath when he was raised.
Robert, I have no problem with the idea of Yahshua pre-existing. I see Christophanies frequently in old covenant text. By “notions” (perhaps a poorly choosen word), I was referring to your references to “Elohim rest their Sabbath“, “… during the millennium by Adam till he sinned., and “… after the millennium Yahshua returns this authority back to the Elohim, something lucifer was reluctant to do after the first Sabbath.” I have no idea what you’re talking about. These ‘statements’ all presuppose a theology I’m not famaliar with.
Besides I am typically skeptical of the use of words such as ‘millennium’ as it seems to me much ado has been made from little. Although χιλιοι is found in the bible to mean 1000, its plural use doesn’t contain such precision. It’s kind of like how we use the word “dozens“. There were dozens of birds on the ledge – does not mean there were exactly 24! Use of ‘dozens’ (just like χιλιοι) typically provides an approximation only, rarely anything more.
Even so, and apart from that criticism – it seems that you hold beliefs that go beyond orthodoxy (which is fine if they are biblically justifiable) – but ones I’m ignorant to.
I have already presented in another thread that Eusebius was total unaware of a sunday resurrection in his letter Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum if you translate greek yourself and again he is totally unaware of Sunday
Commentary on the Psalms by Eusebius of Caesarea Psalm 92
Wherefore as they rejected it the Word, by the New Covenant, Translated and transferred the feast of the sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the symbol of true rest, viz. The Saving Lord’s Day, the first of the light, in which the Saviour of the world, after all his labours among men, obtained the victory over death, and passed the portals of heaven, having achieved a work superior to the six-days’ creation on this day, which is the first of light and of the true Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world, And do those things according to the spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the sabbath; for we make spiritual offerings and sacrifices, which are called sacrifices of praise and rejoicing; we make incense of a good odour to ascend, as it is said, ‘Let my prayer come up before thee as incense.’ Yea, we also present the shewbread, reviving the remembrance of our salvation, the blood of sprinkling, which is of the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, and which purifies our souls. . . . Moreover we are diligent to do zealously, on that day, the things enjoined in this Psalm; by word and work making confession to the Lord, and singing in the name of the Most High. In the morning, also, with the first rising of our light, we proclaim the mercy of God toward us; also his truth by night, exhibiting a sober and chaste demeanour; And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the sabbath [Jewish seventh day,] these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank and more honourable than the Jewish sabbath. For on that day, in making the world, God said, Let there be light, and there was light; and on the same day, the Sun of righteousness arose upon our souls. Wherefore it is delivered to us [paradodotai, it is handed down by tradition,] that we should meet together on this day ; and it is ordered that we should do those things announced in this Psalm.
Robert: Your last comment doesn’t appear to address anything in previous comments. Did you mean to comment on another post? In any case, Eusebius is speaking of the precedence of the Lord’s Day over the Jewish sabbath. I don’t see anything there are explicitly refers to a Sunday resurrection, but even still, you’d be arguing from silence. However, when I see “and on the same day, Sun of righteousness arose upon our souls,” which refers to the first day, I see that as implicitly referring to a Sunday resurrection.
Thanks for clarifying that …
Well that might explain it – I’m woefully ignorant of the writings of the Church fathers (perhaps purposefully) – despite Brian’s valiant effort to educate us, his readership, with frequent posts about his own efforts to become more familiar with them …
Kind of like the Reformers, although their views (both Reformers and Church fathers) are interesting and everything, I’d rather study the bible directly, than the infallible views of scholars who themselves struggle to understand.
If this idea originates from Eusebius and suggests that Sabbath has become figurative – that’s another trend I resists – the spiritualization of the old covenant into the new. The new covenant is the completion and perfection of the old covenant, not a figurative replacement for ….
In other words – the bridegroom has not married some new bride in a type of imitation covenant, but has married the original bride all over again in the same covenant as at first except this time the bride is whole and pure, not a harlot.
JohnDave Medina, I took it to be his clarifying my comment that I had no idea what he was talking about.
I took it to show this business about Elohim resting in Sabbaths to have originated with Eusebius.
I could have misunderstood however …
John
It wast relevant to comment to Patrick but if you or Brian want to you can make it a topic for discussion
Andrew
I only use the church fathers to understand the progression of christianity at certain periods of time. I also take their doctrines with a grain of salt by weighing against their motives expressed in a full reading of their works. Every once in a while they provide witness against their formed doctrines accidentally or in early works.
“However, when I see “and on the same day, Sun of righteousness arose upon our souls,” which refers to the first day, I see that as implicitly referring to a Sunday resurrection.”
John
Just how does”and on the same day, Sun of righteousness arose upon our souls,” refer to the first day of week. Is it because a few years later a pagan emperor used that to declare the Lords day to be the day of the Sun. Where in this passage does it even hints to that. If you understood the feast of the Sabbath and when the jews had it you would understand the issues surrounding the transference of it to the morning light on the day part (late) of the Sabbaths and understand how for many many centuries christians did both. To the matter of fact Socrates states that in his time only Rome had forsaken the Sabbath feasts
Boyarin sounds like an interesting read. I think that the way we look for Trinity in OT in systematic theology can be pretty pragmatic and awkward. Tracking with themes like the son of God, personification of word of God, God as a Father and humanity’s failure to live as sons and daughters of God, etc., seems to be a better way to set up for the NT revealing the son of God as God himself. Just posted some of these thoughts on my friends blog:
http://churchmethod.com/2013/03/30/preach-jesus-preach-the-trinity-by-jesse-califf/
Melchizedec was priest of the Most High God. God there is singular suggesting that tradition was out of step with God’s own revelation as a plural God acting in unity. Elohim (lural) and bara – he created (singular). This latter shows the trinity acting in unity. God revealed thatto Moses as well as the Melchizedec passage. I know some will disagree. (Gen1:1 and 14:18-20)
Can there be love without people to love one another? If God is love then there must have been a number in the Godhead not one.
In Gensis we have the title Yehovah (YHVH not YHWH, no W in Hebrew) Elohim which is God in relation to Man. Again a plurality.
I know you will speak of a development but we need to ask did God walk and talk with man and does He now? Is the Lord jesus God? After all He did use the I Am title at the end of John chpater eight.
Time is pressing so I will wait to see how everyone tries to tear my thoughte here apart.
Roger
The title Elohim is masc-fem plural form of El denoting the Elyon (Most High) Creator and the first Created Wisdom aka Chavah the Mother of All Living of which Adam’s wife was named after. I see YHWH (YHVH) as the compound of YAH AND CHAVAH with YAH as the Most High invisible part and CHAVAH as the visible part of both Elohim ( EL ,ELOHA) and YHVH ( YAHAVAH).
Btw of course I Am was before Abraham and was the reveal-er to Yahshua.
rogerpenney34 said “YHVH not YHWH, no W in Hebrew”,
Ahh, not quite.
I assume you know modern Hebrew has VAV, but that the Tegragrammaton יהוה predate modern Hebrew appearing both in paleo-Hebrew and Aramaic? It’s use also predates paleo-Hebrew appearing in hieroglyphic ‘New Kingdom’ inscriptions referring to “the Land of the Shasu of Yahweh” found specifically in the Soleb and Amarah-West topographical lists.
From transliterations of these ancient references of the Tegragrammaton and other words involving the ‘VAV’ back from Greek and Egyptian we know that use of the VAV as VAV is relatively modern. In paleo-Hebrew the VAV was more WAW. The letter WAW may not be “W”, but it clearly was as the vowel “O” and adopted a similar sound (as W).
This letter combination into Greek was translated “IAΩ” (IAO) with Omega for the WAW (not VAV), and similarly so with the Egyptian hieroglyphic.
So, its really only “YHVH not YHWH” if you ignore the history of the language and the most ancient references to this name!
Andrew
How is it they chose to pronounce it yahweh when the only thing certain in their transliteration is ya–h–wa. All this witnesses against is jehovah certainly not Yahavah (yahawa) but if you can explain how they are certain then please explain away
rogerpenney34: I think your statement “If God is love then there must have been a number in the Godhead not one” is biblically correct and a strong argument against modalism. I think the pronunciation of the Hebrew ו is a matter of regional and/or temporal difference. In my conversations with Jews on Genesis 1:1, some pronounced the conjunction as “ve” and some as “we.” It seems that the equivalent of ו in modern (Egyptian) Arabic is pronounced as “w.”
Robert, I was addressing the claim it was YHVH, rather than YHWH, but I agree, pronunciation is a bit harder to pin down. I understand they arrive at pronunciation by looking at transliterations into Greek (or other languages).
Andrew
Most transliterations usually are close but since the fears of 2nd temple judaism when pronouncing the name it is really difficult to know if it was a just a guess of the early church seeing I have seen it many different ways in early greek writings. Just lookin at what the early church has done to the hebrew name or title Yahshua into Jesus I would be hard pressed to accept . The only thing I am 100% sure of is YAH is the name or title of the Elyon and Chavah is the name or title of the mother of all living beings and Elohim is masc-fem- plural