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.

from Classical Greek culture⁶² produced in a matrix of mutual cultural interaction⁶³.

        Furthermore, the cultural, political and intellectual forces that led to Hellenism were not rooted solely in Greece. The Persian Empire, through its non-Semitic nature, and numerical minority status, undermined older political institutions. Thus, it brought about greater political centrality and caused a revolution in world economy that allowed the propagation of Hellenism⁶⁴. "Hellenization", then, either during the age of Hellenism, or Greek influence from earlier, cannot be seen simply as the adaptation and imitation of Greek culture⁶⁵. Indeed, "[Hellenization] cannot be measured only by the extent to which the peoples and cultures of [the Near East] were drawn to this one regnant culture"⁶⁶, nor was it simply a one-way exchange, "for the East left its mark, as well"⁶⁷. Ultimately, the phenomenon of Hellenism is to be viewed as a complex of interactions between Greek, Asian, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Levantine and Persian influences. These subtle but important dimensions of Greek contact with the Near East establish the likelihood that the shared idea of the golden mean need not be of Greek origin, but of Eastern origin.

        The bias towards a Hellenistic dating for Qoheleth, based on the presence of the golden mean, is further problematic in light of Qoheleth’s linguistic data. Evidence regarding the presence and absence of foreign influence shows that the language of the text is "a vernacular, specifically, the everyday language of the Persian period"⁶⁸. More specifically, the presence of two Persian loan words⁶⁹, the presence and specific, technical use of several