John H. Choi, «The Doctrine of the Golden Mean in Qoh 7,15-18: A Universal Human Pursuit», Vol. 83 (2002) 358-374

Two issues surrounding the doctrine of the golden mean in Qoh 7,15-18 are addressed. First, a review and critique of previous research demonstrates that the passage indeed supports the golden mean, and does not present a theological problem to the reader. Secondly, the view that the golden mean is a Hellenistic product is challenged by considering: (1) the dating and (2) nature of cultural exchange between Greece and the Near East; (3) linguistic data indicating an early date of composition for Qoheleth; and (4) the presence of Near Eastern and Eastern ideas of the golden mean. These four factors demonstrate that the golden mean in Qoheleth likely is not of Greek origin from the time of Alexander the Great, but is likely a universal phenomenon.

for ‘divine’"⁵⁹. The use of this Greek term, then, may provide a glimpse into the Philistine’s acculturation into their Semitic homeland. First, it is significant to note that this Greek term was written in a script quite similar to Phoenician and Hebrew. Second, the deity referred to as ptnyh, is also called ‘dth, "his mistress", revealing solid knowledge of not just the use of the Greek term, but also of the local Semitic dialect⁶⁰. The presence and use of this term suggests, at minimum, that an element of the Greek language was maintained nearly five centuries after the arrival of the Philistines from the Aegean. This fact, then, along with the unique cultural traits of the Philistines identified by Stager, strongly suggest that it may be necessary to speak of the Philistine’s cultural roots in the Aegean.

        Further, the use of the term in a Semitic context also reveals that the Philistines were heavily influenced by their local Semitic climate, demonstrating that while elements of Greek culture were present in the Levant, they were not simply transfused, but applied in a distinctively Semitic manner. Cultural exchange between Greece and the Near East did not simply devolve into a wholesale imitation or adaptation of Greek ways. Hellenization, and the culture of the Hellenistic era, though it was propagated under the imperial auspices and ambitions of Alexander, was sui generis. Hellenism, then, "is not just a description of a type of culture, but a process" in which various cultural, social and political elements fused together⁶¹. This fact is well demonstrated in the fact that several distinct traits of the Hellenistic empire, such as its particular form of land tenure, absolute monarchy as the chief political form, the cult of the divine ruler as the locus of patriotism, and the professionalization of military and civil officers were major departures