Friday Culture Word: ltk/some kind of dry measure
Take a look at these words in their respective languages.
Sumerian: lidga
Akkadian: litiktu, latāktu in Old Akkadian
Ugaritic: ltḥ
Hebrew: לֵתֶך
Syriac: ltk
In the only example in context provided by CAD L, 217, the word is used in relationship with a metal where a litiktu may be a measuring vessel. The West Semitic reflexes all seem to apply to grain. The Ugaritic scribal exercise KTU 5.22:20 has ltḫ. But this might well be a personal name or just the error of a student taking dictation.
Depending on ones prospective, the relationship between these words in their various languages is either confused or confusing. Various scholars have proposed nearly every imaginable borrowing path except those that would defy well established chronology. See Mankowski, 83, is you want all the details. If there is a consensus, I think it is that the word is of non-Semitic origin although not necessarily of Sumerian origin. The Ugaritic reflex with its final ḥ rather than k certainly points in that direction. The fact that neither the Hebrew nor the Syriac end in a final t argues against, but does not absolutely exclude, the possibility that one or both of them were borrowed from Akkadian.
Aside from the issues of etymology, the other abnormally interesting thing about this lexeme is that its only Hebrew example is in a passage whose textual history is itself confused, Hosea 3:2. Here's the Masoretic Text (MT):
So I bought her for myself with fifteen shekels of silver and a homer of barley (that is) and a measure (לֵתֶךְ) of barley.
I added the "(that is)" part and will explain why below.
But the Old Greek reads και εμισθωσαμην εμαυτω πεντεκαιδεκα αργυριου και γομορ κριθων και νεβελ οινου, And I hired her to myself for fifteen pieces of silver and a gomor of barley and a nebel of wine. A tradition followed by many modern translations.
Assuming for the moment that the MT reflects the older tradition, the Old Greek translation solves a problem in the literal reading of the Hebrew, the redundancy caused by two mentions of barley, but at the price of adding a third element, wine, to the cost. I will speak to this assumption in a while. There are other ways of solving the supposed problem. What if, for example, a לֵתֶךְ is some fraction of a חֹמֶר. Both Origin and Jerome were aware of the readings in the MT tradition and the Old Greek and Jerome was aware of interpretations based on לֵתֶךְ being some fraction, half, of a חֹמֶר. See Mankowski, 82, n. 278.
Following a suggestion by Mankowski, 82, n. 278, I'd think that וְלֵ֥תֶךְ שְׂעֹרִֽים is a gloss on וְחֹ֥מֶר שְׂעֹרִ֖ים, " fifteen shekels of silver and a homer (חֹ֥מֶר)of barley (that is) 'and a measure (לֵתֶךְ) of barley.'" One might postulate that the verse "originally" read, וָאֶכְּרֶ֣הָ לִּ֔י בַּחֲמִשָּׁ֥ה עָשָׂ֖ר כָּ֑סֶף וְחֹ֥מֶר שְׂעֹרִ֖ים and either at the time of composition or later someone felt the need to explain that a "homer" of barley was a "measure" of barley.
So want of the Old Greek? Could it actually reflect the older of the traditions? Sure. In fact, I think it easier to explain both the Old Greek and the MT from an underlying Hebrew that read something like,
So I bought her for myself with fifteen shekels of silver and a homer of barley and a jar of wine.
For the MT tradition, this was first truncated and then glossed. The Old Greek simply translated it.
All this is contingent on there having been an "originally text." But there need not have been such a thing.
As I often say, "Your results may vary."
Reference: