This page gives an overview the religion of Natib Qadish, answers frequently asked questions, and clarifies misconceptions about this religion.
The words natib and qadish come from the Ugaritic language, a language from the ancient Canaanite city-state of Ugarit. Natib means “path,” and qadish means “sacred.” Joined together, Natib Qadish means “sacred path.” I generated the name because throughout my research I have yet to find any word that means “religion” in any of the ancient texts. Religion, belief, and practices were so integrated into daily life that there was no word to differentiate them from any other facet of day-to-day routine.
Natib Qadish is a modern polytheistic religion that venerates the ancient deities of Canaan and strives to understand the ancient cultural context and religious practices in which these deities were honored. Within Natib Qadish, there are various views, beliefs, approaches, and practices because much of the research is incomplete and scholarly theories differ widely. How we understand history changes with the sciences available to us through ethnobotany, epigraphy, dating methods, sonar imaging, linguistics, and so on. Most of our information is based on texts written by the Canaanites' own hands, found in the city of Ugarit from the Bronze Age (about 1500-1200 BCE). Over one thousand five hundred texts have been already translated and published. Although less material than what is available for Greek, Roman, and Egyptian studies, it is still a wealth of material when compared to Celtic religious studies.
Practitioners of Natib Qadish focus more upon Bronze Age culture and practices and underscore the importance of the city-state of Ugarit, from where much of the literature and ritual texts originate. Not all Canaanite polytheists consider themselves practitioners of Natib Qadish.
It is important to note that Canaanite religion as described by the Bible is not what ancient Canaanites nor modern adherents of Canaanite religion practice. If you want to know what Canaanite religion was like, a recently written scholarly history book is your best help--see Resources for ideas. Also, we must remember that Canaanite religion is not the same as ancient Israelite religion with the addition of more gods, and it is also not "ancient Judaism" or pagan Judaism: we must resist the temptation to treat these similar cultures as the same when they are not.
Natib Qadish = A Canaanite Polytheist Religion
Qadish = A person who practices Natib Qadish
Qadishu = Another word for a male practitioner of Natib Qadish
Qadishtu = Another word for a female practitioner of Natib Qadish
Qadishuma = Several practitioners of Natib Qadish
A good definition includes not only what we are, but what we are not. Adherents of Natib Qadish are not Wiccan nor are they New Agers. We believe that the deities are separate beings--we do not believe in the Wiccan concepts of The Goddess and The God (or The Lord and The Lady)--this is dualism. Nor do we believe that all the deities are manifestations of one divine force or presence--this is monism. For clarification, see "What is a Polytheist?". As such, we do not celebrate the Wiccan holidays, or the Wheel of the Year.
We are not demon worshippers, and we are not associated with organizations which engage in this practice. We do not believe in theories about extraterrestrials creating civilization on earth, nor are we associated with any organizations which profess this belief. We do not practice sexual rites, and we are not associated with any organizations which do. We honor our elders and the elderly, care for the disabled and the ill, and engage in compassionate community service: we are not associated with (and actively condemn!) any organization which would cause harm to these populations.
If you encounter a person or organization that insists Natib Qadish involves practices of sexual rites, human sacrifice, harm to other people, alien “history” of the earth, monism, dualism, witchcraft, demon worship, or Lilith worship, know that they are misinformed and incorrect.
We are not associated with:
Politics: any parties
Jewish religion, any denomination
Amcha, Am Ha Aretz
Ordo Templi Astartes
Wicca: any “trad”/tradition
NeoPaganism (See "Is Natib Qadish considered a Pagan religion?" below.)
Witchcraft: any tradition, good or bad
Thelema and Ceremonial Magic lodges
Theories of Zechariah Sitchin or Erich Van Daniken
Temple of the Red Lotus
http://natibqadish.blogspot.com/ -- This blog claims to be about Natib Qadish, but it is misinformed.
Modern Canaanite revival probably begins with Am Ha’Aretz, "People of the Land." This movement is also called Amcha. Amcha incorporates Canaanite and Israelite themes into their philosophies and is a church registered in Israel under "Primitive Hebrew Assembly." This group has its roots in Ohavei Falcha, "Lovers of the Soil," a movement which began in the late 1800's. (For more information on Amcha and Ohavei Falcha, see Jennifer Hunter's interview with Elisheva in Magickal Judaism: Connecting Pagan-Wiccan and Jewish Practice. Citadel Press Books, Kensington Publishing Corp., New York, New York, 2006, pgs. 18-19.)
In Pasadena, California, another group, the Ordo Templi Astartes (OTA) in the 1970's began to practice Hermetic rites adding Canaanite, Phoenician, and Israelite themes in Golden Dawn-style rituals. (For more information about OTA rites, see Carroll "Poke" Runyon, Seasonal Rites of Baal and Astarte, The Church of Hermetic Sciences, 1999.)
During the mid-1990’s a small group met on the U.S. West Coast to practice Canaanite-Phoenician style rituals. In 1997, Lilinah Biti-Anat, a key figure in the West Coast rituals, formed an online LevantPagan group and created her extensive site Qadash Kinahnu.
Independently, Tess Dawson began coffee socials, “Coffee in Canaan,” in Chicago, Illinois, US, during 2002-2003, and formed the online Natib Qadish Discussion Group. It was in 2003 that the term Natib Qadish was first used and in 2006 PanGaia Magazine published the first article on Natib Qadish. The first book on modern Canaanite religion was published in 2009 by O-Books--Whisper of Stone: Natib Qadish, Modern Canaanite Religion. Coffee in Canaan continues in Massachusetts. A new book, The Horned Altar: Rediscovering and Rekindling Canaanite Magic is slated for publication in 2013.
Natib Qadish was born out of a desire to focus more strictly on Bronze Age polytheist Canaanite material than previous views and incorporate current research; Natib Qadish is a path developed independently from OTA, Amcha, and Ohavei Falcha, and does not incorporate their practices.
Please also see Courtyard: Previous Events for a full timeline.
No, absolutely not. You do not have to be of any specific ethnicity, religious background, culture, heritage, ability, or sexual orientation to be qadish. The ancient Canaaniteswere a diverse people, and Natib Qadish is likewise comprised of diverse peoples. Individuality brings something new, unique, and beautiful to this religion. Having a certain ethnicity does not make anyone more or less capable of venerating the deities, one's own ancestors, or the ancient Canaanite ancestors. Ethnicity, background, and ability do not make someone more or less a deity’s favorite, it does not make anyone more or less valued, and it does not assure any differential treatment by other adherents.
No. Let’s clarify our terms here. Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria are all part of the Mesopotamian region, and these are Mesopotamian cultures which spanned different periods in time. Canaan is not a Mesopotamian culture because it is outside of and east of Mesopotamia; indeed Canaanite culture is classified as Near Eastern or Mediterranean. Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Canaanite cultures are all different. Lumping them together is a like saying that Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Peru are all the same: we know they are not. Sumerian culture has some commonalities with Babylonian and Assyrian cultures. Babylonian and Assyrian cultures have more in common with each other than they do with Sumer. The people of Canaan and Assyria spoke languages from the Semitic language family, which means that their languages were related but not the same, rather like German is to English, or Spanish is to French and indeed the writing systems are profoundly different. Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria have as much in common with Canaan as Egypt--i.e. some, but not very much. For more information see Ancient Canaanite FAQ: Were the Canaanites Mesopotamian, Sumerian, or Babylonian?
In the modern day, there are people and movements that practice Sumerian religion, and there are people and movements that practice Babylonian and Assyrian religion. These are different religions from Canaanite religion.
We qadishuma, adherents of Natib Qadish, are *polytheists*. We believe that there are many separate individual deities, with identities as separate and distinct from each other as we people are separate and distinct from one another. We are *not* dualists or monists.
Polytheist: A polytheist is a person who acknowledges, worships, venerates, and/or honors more than one deity. This means that the deities are as separate and individual as we humans are. Qadishuma are polytheists.
Henotheist: A henotheist is a polytheist who chooses to venerate only one deity. Rarely is a qadish a henotheist.
Duotheist or Dualtheist: an individual who venerates two deities, for example "The Goddess" and "The God" as often found in Wiccan ideology. We qadishuma are not duotheists or dualtheists.
Monotheist, Monist: A monotheist, by contrast, believes in one and only one god, and believes there are no other gods. A monotheist would believe that other gods besides his/her own are imaginary deities or malicious entities sent to misleed people; alternatively, some monotheists or monists believe that all deities are manifestations of one god or goddess. We qadishuma are not monotheists or monists.
Reconstructionism seeks to revive a religion based upon an ancient culture, and bring that religion into the modern day. Reconstructionism is meant as a lens through which a person can examine religious practice. This method is not intended to stagnate spirituality, but it can if taken to extremes. Many people often confuse reenactment with Reconstructionism. Reconstructionists are often not trying to reenact the past exactly as it was, because this is an impossible goal and an unrealistic standard. Instead, many Reconstructionists try to take what they know of an ancient religion and apply it to modern times. A Reconstructionist is often also known as a "recon".
Reenacting the Canaanite faith exactly as the ancients would have practiced it is neither feasible nor desirable. It is not feasible because information has been lost and destroyed throughout time (even though we have at least 1500 Canaanite primary documents available), and it is not desirable because the cultures in which we live are profoundly different from the ancients' cultures. Ancient times were not idyllic places to live: lives were short and often difficult. Slavery and fewer women’s rights made life even harder for some groups. A realistic Reconstructionists avoids the trap of idealizing or romanticizing the past.
Reconstructionism has drawn criticism over the years. Critics believe that Reconstructionists become too strict in their ways, worry so much about doing rituals exactly as they were done long ago that they do nothing at all, or are escapists. Many Reconstructionists leave room in their practices for modern necesities, while still respecting and honoring themes, processes, and structures important to ancient peoples. Most Reconstructionists are rational, down-to-earth and honest about their approach to religion, and fully grounded in modern reality. I’ve not yet met one who says, “Let’s never use a flush toilet again--we should switch to latrines and privies like our venerated ancients used!”
I prefer the term "revivalism" because the term “reconstructionism” is largely misunderstood; because I believe that reconstructing the past exactly as it was is undesirable and unfeasible; and because I respect thoughtful modern necesities.
Some modern Canaanite polytheists would call themselves Reconstructionists, but others do not.
That’s a messy question and I’ll do my best to answer it. The answer depends frequently on the qadish you ask. Since you’re asking me, I will say no.
Early on in the development of Natib Qadish, many of us connected to the Pagan movement, myself included. Definition of the term “Pagan” as used to define a group of religions varies greatly, but definitions often revolve around “earth centered” or “nature based.” Sometimes definitions go so far as to claim a belief in The Goddess and The God. As I've said before, qadishuma are not dualists, so that definition doesn’t fit. As to the definitions of “earth centered” and “nature based,” these fit awkwardly. We are firstly deity-centered, secondly community-oriented; respect for nature takes third place--not primary importance.
In addition, much of the Pagan religion(s) rely on history and attitudes from the Romantic Era, Jungian psychology and archetypes, James G. Frazer’s Myth and Ritual school of thought, and Joseph Campbell’s theories. Religions based on these ideas tend to exalt the self, individual self expression, and rebellion against establishment or structure.
Many qadishuma, and many other reconstructionists and revivalists of various stripes usually do not adhere to these Romanticist theories and find them outdated. Instead of a focus on the self, we focus on the deities, ancestors, and community. Many of us see religion less as therapy or personal development than the neo-Romanticist Pagans do, and many reconstructionist/revivalist religions have more structure and developed ethics than neo-Romanticist Pagans do.
Wicca is a wonderful and beautiful religion in its own right, however to both insiders in the Pagan movement and to outside scholars of the Pagan movement, “Pagan” has increasingly become synonymous with Wicca. As a qadish, when I used to include myself under the category of “Pagan” I spent more time clarifying that I am not Wiccan and what I don’t do, rather than explaining what I am and what I do. Since I’ve dropped using the term “Pagan” as a descriptor, there is far less assumption about what I practice and believe, and far greater opportunity for discussion, sharing, and learning.
After a long period of contemplation, I’ve come to the conclusion that Natib Qadish is not a “Pagan” religion and not a "NeoPagan" religion, even if it is a cousin to the Pagan religion(s).
Please see my article Two Winding Rivers: The Changing Face of the Pagan Movement at my blog. This article explores the issue more thoroughly and cogently than I have done so here.
No. Judaism is a different religion entirely. The two religions of Natib Qadish and Jewish Paganism are different. Natib Qadish and Jewish Paganism may share some common themes, but they are not the same religion.
It is important to remember that the Israelites of ancient times tried their best to separate themselves from their Canaanite predecessors and neighbors through customs, culture, religious practices, and sometimes warfare as they emerged as an independent culture.
JudeoPagans and Jewitches view Canaanite religion through a lens of Jewish religion and culture, where people who practice Canaanite religion do not. Jewish Pagans and Jewitches who acknowledge different deities besides their one-god often see these deities as manifestations of one deity or one divine force, and Jewish Pagans often include elements of Wicca. In Natib Qadish, the deities are separate and individual beings and Natib Qadish is a separate religion entirely from Wicca.
We must keep in mind that the Canaanites were generally an urban, polytheistic, coastal culture living in a more temperate climate and were at their height about four hundred years before the Israelites, a rural emerging monotheistic culture living in southern deserts. The Hebrew language, although from the same language family as Ugaritic, is not the same language as Ugaritic and uses an entirely different writing system. Likewise the Israelites are not the same as their parent culture the Canaanites, nor are they the same as their sister culture the Phoenicians or the Phoenicians' daughter culture the Carthaginians.
It is also helpful to note that many qadishuma do not classify themselves or Natib Qadish as part of the Pagan movement.
No. Natib Qadish has as much in common with Wicca as Hinduism. And an increasing number of adherents of Natib Qadish are also not categorizing themselves as "Pagan," i.e. the Pagan movement which encompasses Wicca, various New Age practices, and more.
No. It's generally believed that the Qaballah came about in Europe during medieval times, and thus after the time of the Canaanites, and the Enochian magic of John Dee and Edward Kelley in the late 1500's CE. If one tried to trace some Hermetic practices back to King Solomon, this magic still postdates the Canaanites and would be instead more likely be a part of early Israelite religion. Even if one could trace Hermes, the Greek God who lends his name to Hermetic Magic, to Egyptian Thoth it would still be a stretch. Can a Qadish be a Hermetic Mage? It is possible, however Hermetic magic is not specifically a part of Natib Qadish. Qabalah, also called Kabbalah, Cabbalah, and Qabala, are also not specifically part of Natib Qadish although some may practice this system.
Yes, we will bless the meat on our dinner plates in honor of our deities.
No, we do not condone killing animals for the thrill of it and we are against torture and animal cruelty.
In ancient times, sacrifice played a very important role in religious practices. People often kept livestock and would donate a certain amount of that livestock to the temples. The livestock, usually sheep and goats, sometimes “city doves” (pigeons), and sometimes cattle, would be slaughtered in honor of a particular deity. Female animals were offered less than male animals(1) because it only requires a couple of male animals to ensure the flock’s reproduction and having too many males used up resources; females were more valuable because they produce offspring. The meat then fed certain groups of people, perhaps like the priests, the poor, the orphans and widows, or another part of the community(2). The animal carcass might have been burned in its entirety in honor of a deity, but often burnt offerings call for only an organ such as the heart, kidneys, or liver. It is my understanding that much of the meat from these sacrificial animals was eaten.(3)
Today, animal sacrifice takes the form of going to the local grocery store and buying meat in a package like everyone else does. We bless the meat in honor of the deities, prepare and cook the meat, then eat the meat in a communal meal with friends and family. What we do is very similar to families gathering and consuming a Christmas goose or a Pascal lamb.
If an adherent is a farmer or a fisher, then she/he may kill the animal herself/himself, bless the animal in offering to the deities, and bring that offering home for family and friends to consume—granted this is done in accordance to local farming, hunting, and fishing laws. In ancient times, game meat was offered less to the Canaanite deities than farmed meat. If an adherent is vegetarian or vegan, he or she may make an offering of a meat substitute such as seitan. Seitan is preferable because it is made with wheat gluten, and the ancient Canaanites were familiar with wheat. Tofu and tempeh are less desirable because the ancient Canaanites did not have soybeans. But I would think twice before offering the warrior goddess ‘Anatu a salad or a vegetarian option: it is my experience that the deities prefer meat.
Non-animal offerings in ancient times included olive oil, fruit, vegetables, wine, grain, wool, precious metals, cloth, clothing, sandals, incense, and ritual tools.(4)
We do not in any way, shape, or form, condone the torture of animals or the waste of animal life.
(1) Pardee, Dennis. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA, 2002, p. 226.
(2) Pardee, p. 66. A ritual text suggests that “the woman/women may eat (of the sacrificial meal).
(3) Nakhai, Beth Alpert. Archaeology and Religions of Canaan and Israel. The American Schools of Oriental Research, Boston, MA, 2001, pgs.147-8 179-180. In Lachish of the Late Bronze Age, a bronze whisk suggests the preparation of food, and perhaps the partaking of sacral meals, in a religious context. In Lachish of Iron II, there is evidence of sacral meals and food offerings. In Tel Rechov of Iron II, the sacred complex courtyard has ovens for sacral meal preparation.
Del Olmo Lete, Gregorio. Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN, 2004, p. 263. “The same concept of ‘sacrifice’ ([“dabchu”]) implies not only slaughter of the [animal] victim in various forms...but its consumption by the participants. It is in this sense that the texts inform us about what ‘is prepared, consumed, eaten, and drunk.’ In other words, the ‘sacrifice’ is essentially a ‘festival’ that includes a sacred ‘banquet.’
Clemens, David M. Sources for Ugaritic Ritual and Sacrifice, Volume I: Ugarit and Ugarit Akkadian Texts. Ugarit-Verlag, Munster, Germany, 2001, p. 14 also notes that the slaughter of an animal is accompanied by a sacred banquet, feast, or meal.
(4) For lists of items sacrificed or made as offerings, see Pardee 225-7, and Nakhai 42-3. For incense used as an offering, see Wright, David P. Ritual in Narrative: The Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN, 2001, p. 200, 202.
No. Sexual rites are not a part of Natib Qadish, modern Canaanite religion. Well-informed adherents of Canaanite religion do not engage in sexual rites, and it is not a part of our ways or our religion.
It is commonly thought that the ancient Canaanites must have included sexual rites in their temples, but scholars today think this is a misconception brought on by biblical and ancient bias, Victorian scholars obsessed with fertility religion, and common unproven assumptions. It is difficult to prove that any of the Ugaritic texts, or Canaanite religion in general, have to do with hieros gamos (sacred marriage) either in actual or symbolic consummation.
In the Ugaritic texts, the cast of priests known as the Qadishuma (later in Hebrew "Qedeshim"), are noted only as responsible for singing or making recitations of narrative literature. The first-hand texts themselves make no mention of their sexuality or any sexual rites, even though second-hand non-Canaanite texts label these priests as hierodules (also called sacred prostitutes or cultic prostitutes), and some scholars continue the misconception, using and building upon theories born of biblical and ancient bias, assumption, and Victorian fascination.
It is problematic for the beginning student of Canaanite culture because many of the easier-to-obtain references are also older references which rely heavily on preconceived assumptions of Canaanite sexuality. Modern research is moving away from these erroneous assumptions. Unfortunately, because of these misconceptions, some individuals seek out Canaanite religion to gain religious validation for sexual practices they may already engage in, despite that sexual rites are not a part of Canaanite religion--ancient or modern.
For a further exploration of temple prostitution/hierodules in history, please see Sacred Prostitutes by Johanna H. Stuckey.
For more information, See:
Hennie J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East, E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2003, p. 497, 520.
Dever, William. Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel . William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids , MI , 2005, p. 34.
Stephanie L. Budin. The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2008.
The term "Baalism" basically means "the worship of Baal." Anyone who worships Ba‘lu Haddi (Baal, Ba‘al, Ba‘al Hadad) is technically a Baalist. "Ba‘al" translates as "lord" and this refers to several forms of Ba‘al Hadad, as well as various other separate gods connected with different locales. The Ba‘al most venerated in Natib Qadish is Ba‘lu Haddi, the storm god. Those who adhere to the Natib Qadish do not solely venerate Ba‘al and so they do not refer to themselves as Baalists nor to their path as Baalism. Calling a practitioner a Baalist would be similar to calling a Hindu a “Shivaist” or a Wiccan a “Greenmanist.”
No. Natib Qadish is not about demon worship.
A few of our deities are demonized by biblical writers, especially Rashap (also known as Rashpu, Reshef, or Resheph) and ‘Athtartu (also known erroneously as “Ashtoreth”), but these deities were never seen by the Canaanites as demons.
The Ugaritans, however, did see Lilith, or Lamashtu, as a malevolent force, an evil spirit, or a demon, and they did not worship her or honor her. Indeed, they warded against her.
Other Canaanite deities, 'Ilu, Ba‘al Haddi, and Yammu, were assimilated into the character of the earlier biblical god.
Neither Satan nor Hell is mentioned in any Canaanite or Ugaritic texts, and originate much later than the Canaanites. Ancient Canaanites and modern practitioners of Canaanite religion are not Satanists.
No. We do not worship, venerate, call, honor, invoke, evoke, pray to, or pay tribute to Lilith.
In popular thought today, she is often viewed as a misunderstood dark goddess of sexuality, but this simply is not true in ancient lore. There was no male conspiracy that demonized a poor, misunderstood Lilith just because she was a strong female. Lamashtu and Lilitu are older names for Lilith, and this demon was believed responsible for causing illness and death in babies and children. For more information, see Canaan FAQ: Lilith.
Lamashtu is mentioned in an Ugaritic text written in Akkadian, where she is described as a wolf and the text is a ward, an amulet, against her. In the existing Ugaritic texts, never is this entity mentioned as being a deity or receiving offering. If the Canaanites understood Lilitu/Lamashtu as their Mesopotamian neighbors did, then it would be unquestionably wrong to venerate her in any way in a Natib Qadish setting.
No. Ideas presented by these authors are based on only very tentative "fact" at best, and otherwise based on wild speculation or fiction. Works by these authors have nothing to do with Natib Qadish, nor do they have anything to do with Canaanite culture, history, or religion. Aliens did not build the Egyptian pyramids or Sumerian ziggurats, there is no betentacled Sumerian god named Chthulu, and the Necronomicon never existed in antiquity. Extraterrestrial aliens did not establish civilization on earth, and Lovecraft is fiction.
There are many items from the ancient texts that have symbolic meaning for modern Canaanite polytheists. Baal’s war-clubs, Prince Aqhat’s bow, a cup of blessing, an eight-pointed star or a four-rayed solar disk are but a few symbols present. I particularly like the palm, both the tree and the palm of the hand, and their layers of symbolism.
The palm tree, specifically the date palm, is associated with Athirat because of the tree's life-giving qualities: food, shade, and as an indication of water because they grow where water or rain is present. The fronds of the palm also resemble the palm of the hand, and hence the name “palm.” The Greek name for the daughter culture of the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, is derived from a Greek word “phoinike” referring to the famed purple dye created by the Canaanites and their daughter culture, the Phoenicians. This name is linguistically related to the scientific name for date palm: Phoenix dactylifera.
In Ugaritic iconography, a deity depicted in "blessing pose" holds one hand up with palm flexed, with the other hand sometimes holding a cup: see the pictures of 'Ilu and Shachar and Shalim for an example. In Canaan, a thirteenth century BCE stele from Hazor depicts two hands raising up towards a crescent and solar disk.
Another example of the palm as a symbol comes from Khirbet el-Qom from the Israelites of the Iron age, about the 7th-8th centuries BCE. The symbol in the Khirbet el-Qom inscription appears to be used in a protective sense. The palm of the hand has long been used in the Near and Middle East as a sign to avert evil and encourage good fortune.
The symbol is often called a hamsa or khamsa, the Hand of Miriam, or the Hand of Fatima by other cultures. The Ugaritic word for the palm of the hand is kappu, and this is our word for this symbol.
Whisper of Stone: Natib Qadish, Modern Canaanite Religion
available in bookstores and online.
Retailers: Order through National Book Network (NBN) or contact me: admin at canaanitepath.com
Anointed: A Devotional Anthology for the Deities of the Near and Middle East
Available through some bookstores on request, and online. Proceeds go towards funding more anthologies and to charities. For details about charities see Bibliotheca Alexandrina.
Order through Amazon.com or through Bibliotheca Alexandrina
Retailers: Order through Ingram Baker & Taylor or contact me: admin at canaanitepath.com
Contact me: admin at canaanitepath.com
All original written work on this site is copyright © 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012 Tess Dawson, unless otherwise noted.
Please do not use without permission, proper crediting, and a link to my site.
All original artwork and photographs on this site are copyright © 2005, 2008, 2011 Tess Dawson, unless otherwise noted.
Please do not use without permission, proper crediting, and a link to my site.
Natib Qadish: Modern Canaanite Polytheism is a site about Canaanite religion, also called Canaanite revivalism, or Canaanite reconstructionism. This site explores topics of interest for people who practice Canaanite religion, information regarding the ancient Canaanites themselves, and includes both ancient Canaanite religion and its modern counterpart.