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.

must be debunked. These observations may be rooted in the fact that a narrow view of the golden mean is theologically difficult, as it allows one to tolerate, even aim for, moderate wickedness ⁵. Some argue that the passage cannot state the mean because it refers to the extremes of wisdom and folly and avoids extreme ethical categories. This argument is based on the structural ordering of the terms qydc, lks, Mkx and (#$r⁶ or the clauses in vv. 16-17 in which these terms occur ⁷, which stresses the middle terms, wisdom and folly, over and against righteousness and wickedness.

        This disjunction between wisdom/folly and ethics is problematic, however, on several levels. Firstly, it is based on problematic structural observations, as each of the above views ignores the last clause of both v. 16 and v. 17 that begins with hml. These two verses, which are the crux of Qoheleth’s golden mean, show a linear A-B-C-A¢-B¢-C¢ structure, which places no emphasis on one pair of terms over the other.