Ancient Literature Tool & Ancient Near Eastern Texts Discrepancy?

Liam

Using the Ancient Lit tool with the Ancient Near Eastern Texts resource, I noticed that the Bible reference in the ANET resource has different references that don't come up in the Ancient Lit tool. I also noticed that some of the results in the Ancient Lit tool don't really seem to correlate with the Bible texts that they correspond with.

Does anyone have any information on this. Which is more reliable, the Ancient lit tool, or the index in the ANET? Has anyone else had any issues with wrong references in the Ancient Lit tool? Or are the means of gathering information for the ALT just different than going off of the supplied index in a given resource?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to create a reading list on ancient backgrounds to go through as I read the Bible. Any help here would be much appreciated!

Rick Brannan (Logos)

Hi Liam.

If you're specifically interested in ANET, then you should use the index in ANET.

Ancient Literature is more like an automatically curated superset of resources, but it is not comprehensive (we don't just take every reference). One issue with ANET/COS and other compilations is that their references are usually at the document level. So Ancient Lit may only return a link to a document for a reference (usually in the footnotes, at that) instead of the direct location of the reference, making it more work to look up the reference.