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.

        A consideration of the nature of Hellenism, the linguistic data of Qoheleth, and the presence of the golden mean in other cultures reveals that the idea of the golden mean is not isolated in the Hellenistic Age, nor is it limited to the Greek realm. As evidenced by the Proverbs of Ahiqar, and the Instructions of the Vizier Ptah-Hotep, the golden mean may have had distinct, Near Eastern manifestations. But, as evidenced by the teachings of Buddha and Confucius, the golden mean had a strong presence in the Oriental philosophies. The idea of the golden mean, then, is not limited to one thought system or locale, but is reflective of a universal human concern for life and its travails formulated in a uniquely theistic/Yahwistic matrix. Just as Qoheleth’s golden mean warns the reader against over-reliance on one extreme of life, so it seems that scholarship must also be aware of viewing one realm and one civilization as the source for all philosophical innovation.