Qoh 7, 15-18 ¹ presents Qoheleth’s statement of the golden mean, an ideology, with varying manifestations, in which a course of moderation is prescribed as the ideal. The "ideal", of course, depends largely on the perspective of the one who defines the mean. Though some earlier views of the passage saw a call for moderation², recent analyses may be split into two biases. The first states that the passage does not support the golden mean, often viewed as an "immoral doctrine"³. The other bias affirms the golden mean, but sees it as a product of the Hellenistic age, presumably because the golden mean became popular under Aristotelian or Stoic influences ⁴. The first bias may be a reaction against the Hellenistic bent of the second, as many who reject the golden mean do so because of its purported Hellenistic origin. The aim of this investigation is to respond to the two biases, firstly, by demonstrating that the passage does support the golden mean, and secondly, by demonstrating that the golden mean is not the result of Hellenic influence, but a universal phenomenon.

I. The Presence of the Golden Mean in Qoheleth

        In order to respond to the first bias regarding the presence of the golden mean in the passage, some questionable textual interpretations

_____________________
359

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.

_____________________
360

        Further, v. 15, which provides the foundation for the warnings against extreme behavior in vv.16-17, does so in clearly ethical terms by presenting the counter-traditional observation that a righteous one dies while a wicked one prolongs life. If there indeed is dissimilarity between wisdom/folly and ethics in this passage, it is illogical that Qoheleth would give advice regarding wisdom based on ethical observations. Additionally, it is unlikely that Qoheleth would view wisdom/folly and ethics, reflected in the terms, qydc and (#$r⁸, as disparate. Qoheleth is, at minimum, a negative commentary on traditional wisdom, as influenced by retribution theology ⁹. But even if Qoheleth completely rejects traditional wisdom, this does not necessitate a rejection of the language of traditional wisdom. Hence, Qoheleth uses the terms and categories of traditional wisdom to formulate his critique. As often stated in Wisdom literature, then, wisdom and righteousness, and conversely, wickedness and folly, are not separate abstractions. Rather, they are unified concepts; perhaps one is even a derivative of the other¹⁰.

        The argument is also made that the passage does not condone the golden mean because it warns against an excessive pretense to righteousness, rather than actual righteousness. It has been argued that the phrase hbrh qydc yht-l) is "elliptical" because it uses the 2mp imperfect of hyh with an adjectival form of qdc, rather than the 2mp imperfect of the root. In this light, "[Qoheleth’s] warning [is]...against self-righteousness and pretensions to wisdom"¹¹ only. Accordingly, if the warning was against actual righteousness, the statement qdct-l) would have been used, instead¹². Within Qoheleth, however, the terms qdc and (#$r never refer to one who acts in pretense. More

_____________________
361

importantly, the so-called elliptical construction – the imperfect of hyh with an adjective in lieu of a verbal cognate – occurs at least twice elsewhere in Qoheleth, with neither use denoting pretense¹³.

        It has also been argued that the hithpael stem of the root Mkx in v. 17 adds an element of pretense to the verb¹⁴. This conclusion is problematic, however, as the only other occurrence of the hithpael of Mkx, in Exod 1,10, refers to a demonstration of, not pretense to, wisdom. The hithpael of Mkx does occur in Later Biblical Hebrew, specifically four times in Sirach, but these uses do not refer to a pretense of wisdom, either¹⁵. The "pretense" view of these warnings, then, is cumbersome, as it forces the reader to reckon two nearly symmetrical phrases in extremely divergent ways¹⁶. This cannot hold, as the nearly identical structure between the two verses calls for an identical interpretation¹⁷. Thus, both warnings must point to either a pretense of righteousness and wickedness, or to actual righteousness and wickedness. Since the passage does not shy away from ethical categories, and because it does not refer in any way to pretense, Qoheleth’s warnings must be against extreme, actual righteousness and wickedness.

        In taking a deeper look at the warnings, then, it must be noted that the advice for moderation is rooted in yet another of Qoheleth’s "life" observations - that a righteous person dies wqdcb and a wicked person lives wt(rb. This observation is a strong challenge to traditional wisdom, but, like the rest of Qoheleth’s "challenges", are only

_____________________
362

statements of facts, not attempts at producing a "counter-dogma" ¹⁸. Qoheleth simply states that "a man perishes in his righteousness"¹⁹ with no explanation why this happens, only that it does, for such is the unpredictable nature of life²⁰. And because life is unpredictable, moderation is prescribed. Neither extreme is desirable, but why?

        The warning against extreme righteousness points to an effort to achieve something un-human. In essence, it is a warning against a hopeless aspiration "to a righteousness that admits only of good but allows no mistakes at all"²¹. In Qoheleth’s view, this aspiration is hopeless, because, as stated in v. 20, qydc Ny). This does not mean that there are none righteous at all, however²², as the clause qydc Ny) is modified by the relative clause )+xy )lw bw+-h#&(y r#$), which reminds the reader that "There is no one so righteous".²³ A pursuit of hyper-righteousness, then, is the ultimate act of "presumption"²⁴, and "hubris" ²⁵, because it is more than an effort to please the divine. It is an endeavor to span the great divide between humanity and divinity. The warning is a reminder that one must live life happy in the lot that God has given, and not strive for what lies beyond the mortal’s grasp ²⁶.

        Seeing that a pursuit of extreme righteousness leads to ruin, one may be tempted to head for the other extreme. The second warning in v. 17 reminds the reader that this is not advisable, either. True, humanity is burdened with imperfection, but this does not permit unchecked debauchery. Humanity is still called to fear God, and in doing so, must take care to do what God has commanded. This call, however, is tempered with a reminder that humanity will fall short. In a way, the warnings are a measure of grace, as they free humanity from the notion that the divine expects perfection. The warning against being very wicked, then, may not be a ringing endorsement to be moderately wicked, but accepts that humanity’s pursuit of the divine will be flawed.

_____________________
363

        These two warnings are joined together by v. 18, "It is good that you should take hold of one without letting go of the other". The antecedents of the demonstrative pronouns (hzm...hzb) are ambiguous, and may refer either to the warnings against extreme behavior or to extreme behavior itself. What is clear, however, is the call for balance, seizing one without letting go of the other, in the one who fears God, for this allows one to )cy²⁷. What Qoheleth approves of then, is no ethical nihilism, but, "a concession to the reality of human imperfection" for "the mortal at best is...simul iustus et peccator – at once a just one and a sinner"²⁸. Balance between righteousness and wickedness is not an ethical compromise, "as if righteousness should be tempered with a modicum of wickedness"²⁹. Rather, it is the proper manifestation of fear. In fearing God, one must recognize the great chasm between humanity and divinity. There are simply things humans cannot hope to achieve because of their finite nature. But, in fearing God, one must obey the divine. It is "recognition that one is human, and so one can be no less but also is no more" ³⁰. And because the golden mean of Qoheleth does not advocate an ethical average, there is a reminder in v. 19 of the great value of wisdom ³¹. It is yet another reminder that imperfect humanity has been called to higher achievements. But once again, this call is quickly tempered by a reminder of the inherent fallibility of mortals in vv. 20-22.

_____________________
364

II. The Golden Mean in Greek Literature

        This understanding of Qoheleth’s golden mean is much closer to Greek thought than has been previously held³², a fact that may lead some to classify Qoheleth as a product of the Hellenistic age. As is well known, the most influential articulation of the golden mean among the early Greek philosophers was Aristotle’s conception of the golden mean, which states that every virtue lies between two associated, but polar vices. The virtuous action is not an arithmetic average between the two extremes, however, for "sometimes, the right amount is much closer to one [extreme] than the other"³³. The determinants for the virtuous action include "the demands of the situation" ³⁴, along with the temperament of the individual³⁵. Based

_____________________
365

on these two criteria, "[one] must consider what [one is] most inclined to" and "and drag [oneself] away to the contrary extreme"³⁶. According to Aristotle, then, some extreme actions are quite appropriate on some occasions, for some people, while the opposite extreme may be appropriate on other occasions, for other people³⁷. At no point, though, does the Aristotelian mean call for lukewarm or "average" action. Both Aristotle and Qoheleth, then, focus not on actions that strike the middle road, but appropriate actions.

        In addition to Aristotle, there are other presentations of the golden mean in Greek thought. The Delphic mean states "nothing in excess"³⁸, while the Pseudo-Phokylida (ca. 540 BCE) states "In thy religion, keep the mean, due measure is best"³⁹. Theognis the Megarian (ca. 520 BCE) also places much emphasis on the idea of moderation. The primary themes of his works are well articulated by the often occurring terms "order", "equal", "middle", "measure" and "nothing excessively"⁴⁰. Theognis applies the golden mean to politics, as he advises "Be not over vexed at the citizens in confusion, Kyrnos, but keep to the middle way as I do" and also counsels "Calmly keep to the middle way with your feet, as I do"⁴¹. He also applies the principle of the golden mean in social behavior, as he states "There are two lots of drinking for wretched mortals...Between these, I will choose the mean, nor will you persuade me either not to drink or to drink too little"⁴². The parallels between Theognis and Qoheleth also extend into the social atmosphere that led to their literary activity. Just as Qoheleth sought to provide an accounting for the unexpected nature

_____________________
366

of life and the ineffectiveness of traditional wisdom, so Theognis also sought to give a reckoning of the turbulent economical and social atmosphere of Megara, amidst the reversal of traditional values ⁴³.

        In addition to the golden mean, other thematic parallels between Qoheleth and Greek thought have been identified. The preference in the text for Myhl) over hwhy may emulate an evolution in Greek religion in which the concepts of deities were abandoned in favor of the non-committal concepts of fate⁴⁴. The "knowledge through observation" element of Qoheleth might also echo the intellectual process of Hellenism⁴⁵. Several traces of Epicurean thought have also been identified in Qoheleth. Specifically, Qoh 3,11 and 5,1 may reflect the Epicurean notion of the distant, self-sufficient deity; while Qoh 9,5 mirrors the Epicurean belief of the finality of death⁴⁶. Qoheleth’s cyclical view of life and its travails may also reflect the Stoic cyclical view of nature (1,1-11; 3,15a)⁴⁷. A tremendous range of thematic parallels has also been established by Rainer Braun, who draws conceptual links between Qoheleth and a significant variety of ancient Greek writers in virtually every genre⁴⁸.

III. Hellenization and its Impact on the Levant

        Because of general thematic parallels, as well as the specific parallels relating to the golden mean, between Qoheleth and Greek thought, the conventional wisdom is that Qoheleth is a product of the Hellenistic era⁴⁹. This conclusion is problematic, however, based on

_____________________
367

the nature of Greek influence on the Levant, which began far earlier than the time of Alexander. Moreover, the interaction between Greece and the Levant, either during Alexander’s time or before it, was hardly uni-directional. Related to these factors is strong evidence that the linguistic data of Qoheleth supports a Persian Era dating for the text (early 5^th to late 4^th BCE), rather than the widely held Hellenistic dating. These factors, discussed further below, combine to reveal that the golden mean of Qoheleth is not simply a product of the Hellenistic age.

        There is strong evidence pointing to the presence of Greek culture in the Levant far before the time of Alexander. Current research and material evidence suggests that "first contact" between Greece and the Levant took place as early as the 11^th century BCE⁵⁰. The volume of material evidence from this period is not large, but widely distributed from north to south. Evidence also points to a fairly wide-scale importation of Eastern Greek and Corinthian material into the Levant by the 8^th-7^th centuries BCE. The material evidence from this era is not limited to the coastal areas, but is also found at significant inland sites, some of which lie along major trade routes⁵¹. In addition to the importation of Greek material culture was the settlement of Greek people, primarily traders and mercenaries⁵², before the Alexandrian era⁵³. While the significance of the cultural impact of mercenaries or traders can be debated, the same cannot be said for another group of early Greek migrants, the Philistines.

_____________________
368

        Widely held to be the first group of Greek settlers in the Levant, the Philistines introduced and maintained several distinct, Greek cultural elements into their new homeland⁵⁴. Further, a royal dedicatory inscription from Ekron, likely dating to the 7^th century BCE⁵⁵, may also reveal that the Philistines maintained a trace of the Greek language in the Levant. The inscription, written in a peculiar Semitic script⁵⁶, dedicates a temple in Ekron to an unknown female deity ptgyh - "...for pt[g]yh, his lady, May she bless him, and protect him, and prolong his days, and bless his land"⁵⁷. On the basis of paleographic analysis, Aaron Demsky notes that ptgyh should be read as ptnyh, vocalized as potnia⁵⁸, "the common Archaic Greek word

_____________________
369

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

_____________________
370

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

_____________________
371

Aramaisms that are representative of the economic vocabulary of the Persian period⁷⁰, and the complete absence of Grecisms, in the form of either loan-words or phrasal idioms that were often held to be of Greek origin⁷¹ support this thesis. Further, the language of the text is characteristic of late Biblical Hebrew, not Late Hebrew, undermining the argument that it represents Mishnaic or Rabbinic stylings⁷². On this basis, a date between the second half of the 5^th century and the first half of the 4^th century is suggested⁷³. A counter proposal has been offered, though, which focuses on the use of an Aramaic root +l#$. It has been demonstrated that the specific use of this root in Qoheleth is not limited to the Persian era, but is present in the Hellenistic era, as well⁷⁴, so that "the debate on the date of the Book of Ecclesiastes cannot be considered closed"⁷⁵. There is still much linguistic evidence, however, that seems to favor a Persian dating. Though this may not be enough to close the debate over the date of Qoheleth, it does strongly suggest that a Hellenistic dating for Qoheleth be approached with some reservation.

IV. The Golden Mean in Other Literature

        Finally, the presence of unique and independent presentations of the golden mean precludes a solely Greek origin for that doctrine. There are at least two distinct Near Eastern works that reflect an idea of moderation. The Proverbs of Ahiqar, a distinctly Semitic ⁷⁶ work dating to the 7^th or 6^th century BCE ⁷⁷ includes a proverbial section which reads:

_____________________
372

Do not remove you(rself) from wisdom and [let] n[ot = lest]
Do not be overly clever [and] let not (=lest) [your...] be extinguished 
(Or: Do not gaze overmuch [and] not let {lest} [your] vi[sion] be dimmed.)
Do not be too sweet and [let] them not (= lest they) swallow you.
Do not be bitter [and let them not ( = lest they) spit you out] ⁷⁸. 

        This work was one of the best known and most widely disseminated works in the Near East⁷⁹, and of distinctly Semitic origin, and so, there is no need to postulate a Greek influence that may have carried this idea to Qoheleth. The idea of moderation is also reflected in the Egyptian work The Instruction of the Vizier Ptah-Hotep, dating to Middle Kingdom Egypt. A part of the instructions state "Take counsel with the ignorant as well as the wise"⁸⁰. A latter portion of the text also reads "Greater is the respect for the mild (than) for the strong"⁸¹.

        There are also two sources from the Far East that place a heavy emphasis on the golden mean. The first is found in the teachings of Buddhism. A collection of the teachings of the Buddha, called "The Sermon at Benares", details the lifestyle of the Tathagata⁸², the perfect one, who is the individual who lives by the middle path⁸³. The Buddha states:

There are two extremes...which the man who has given up the world ought not to follow – the habitual practice, on the one hand, of self-indulgence which is unworthy vanity and fit only for the worldly-minded — and the habitual practice, on the other hand, of self-mortification, which is painful, useless and unprofitable⁸⁴.

        The founder of the movement, the prince Sidahhata Gautama, shares remarkable biographical details with the textual presentation of the "life" of Qoheleth⁸⁵, in particular in the manner in which the

_____________________
373

Buddha comes to his teachings. Just as Qoheleth experienced firsthand the bitterness of life, and the ineffectiveness of traditional wisdom’s view on righteousness and wickedness, likewise, the Buddha experienced both the extravagant lifestyle of a rich man, and the destitute life of a beggar, and counsels that neither is appropriate for the one who seeks piety, recognizing that his tradition was unable to deal with either extreme. Further, the Buddha echoes Qoheleth’s bleak outlook on life, stating "Look about and contemplate life. Everything is transient and nothing endures" ⁸⁶. In teaching moderation, then, the Buddha, like Qoheleth, sees balance as a necessity for religious devotion. For the latter, it leads to the proper demonstration of the fear of God. For the former, "the middle way is a path which opens the eyes and bestows understanding, which leads...to Nirvana" ⁸⁷.

        Confucian philosophy also espouses an idea of the golden mean, and in fact, holds it in such high regard, that the doctrine of the golden mean is one of the Four Major Books of Confucian thought⁸⁸. Konzig, known to the West as Confucius (550 to 479 BC), regarded the golden mean, chung yung, as the perfect virtue, and the solution to societal ills⁸⁹. Further, Confucius applied the mean to theories of government and social practice⁹⁰, and much of his pedagogy focused on the mean⁹¹.

_____________________
374

        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.

SUMMARY

        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.

© 2002 Biblica

________________________________

NOTES

^* I would like to thank Dr. Bill T. Arnold, Dr. Sandra Richter and Dr. Brent A. Strawn for their valuable comments and suggestions.

¹ The golden mean, proper, is presented in 7,15-18, which is a part of the larger subsection of 7,15-22. V. 15, beginning with Qoheleth’s formulaic statement yty)r lk-t) starts this section; v. 23, with Qoheleth again using a formulaic lk statement, then, would begin a new sub-section. Within the section of 7,15-22, v. 15 serves as an introductory header, giving the reason for the advice to come in vv. 16-18. V. 19 speaks of the virtue of wisdom, while vv. 20-22 speak about the ubiquity of evil. The details of the relationships between these verses are further explored below.

² W. Brindle includes a concise and helpful survey of earlier interpretations of 7,15-18. W. BRINDLE, "Righteousness and Wickedness in Ecclesiastes 7:15-18", AUSS 23 (1985) 243-257.

³ R.N. WHYBRAY, Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI 1989) 120.

⁴ BRINDLE, "Righteousness and Wickedness", 244.

⁵ Of course, the theological impact of a doctrine of the golden mean is considerably reduced when the poles to be balanced are not absolute righteousness and wickedness. For example, Loyal Young argues that the balance is to be struck between complete apostasy and over-zealous fanaticism, the former, leading to divine punishment, the latter leading to martyrdom. A more comprehensive survey of these alternative poles is found in ibid., 244-251.

⁶ J. LOADER, Polar Structures in the Book of Qoheleth (BZAW 152; New York 1979) 47. Loader makes the argument that parallelism between the four terms emphasizes wisdom and folly over and against ethics.

⁷ C.L. SEOW, Ecclesiastes (AB 23C; New York 1997) 267. Seow argues that the four clauses hbrh qydc yht-l), lks yht-l), Mkxtt-l) and (#$rt-l) constituting the warnings of Qoheleth in vv. 16-17 are arranged in chiasm, and emphasize the poles of wisdom and folly, as the chiasm effectively states "the righteous is the opposite of the fool, ‘to be wise’ is the opposite of ‘to be wicked.’" R. Murphy comes to a similar conclusion, that the passage does not reflect ethics, based on his observation that v. 18 does not focus on prescribed behavior leading to a positive result, but is merely a statement of the instability of life (R.E. MURPHY, Ecclesiastes [WBC 23A; Dallas, TX 1992] 70). However, the passage does not present v. 18 in apposition to the statements regarding the negative nature of life, but because of this view of life. Thus, v. 18, in a sense, becomes a "way out" for those who experience life in this manner, pointing out a positive result in that one who achieves balance "in this" and "from this", is the one who fears God. It makes clear that balance in life, then, is efficacious in at least one thing - religious devotion.

⁸ qydc refers to right attitudes and conduct, according to the norms of society (SEOW, Ecclesiastes, 267), directed towards the divine or the human realm. (BRINDLE, "Righteousness and Wickedness", 254). The antonym (#$r is to be seen in the same ethical light, and neither term refers to a relative good or evil, as often denoted by bw+ and (r.

⁹ T.A. Perry (Dialogues with Kohelet [University Park, PA 1983]) and R. Gordis, (Koheleth – The Man and His World [New York 1951]) have noted that Qoheleth represents a dialogue between a sage and a pessimist on the merits of traditional wisdom. It has also been noted that a key conviction of Qoheleth was that "wisdom cannot achieve its goal" (J. CRENSHAW, Old Testament Wisdom. An Introduction [Louisville, KY 1998] 117).

¹⁰ Cf. Prov 2,6-9; 9,9; 10,31; 11,30; 14,16.

¹¹ WHYBRAY, Ecclesiastes, 120.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Qoh 5,1 states "let your words be few", using the adjectival form of the root x(m. The verbal form of this root is not foreign to Qoheleth, for in 12,3, it is used in the piel perfect form. Qoh 8,12 states "it will be good to the fearers of God", again using an adjectival form in the place of an attested verbal root b+y.

¹⁴ As evidence for the "pretense" aspect of the hithpael, Whybray (Ecclesiastes, 121), refers to 2 Samuel 13,5, where the hithpael of hlx means "pretending to be sick".

¹⁵ The occurence of the hithpael of Mkx in Sir 32,4 refers to a demonstration of, not necessarily, fallacious wisdom. The other occurences, in Sir 6,32 and 38,24-25 refer to acquiring wisdom, rather than demonstrating false wisdom. For the classification of Sirach as "Later Biblical Hebrew", see A. SÁENZ-BADILLOS, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwolde) (Cambridge 1996) 112-113; 126.

¹⁶ Whybray himself notes the nearly identical clause lks yht-l)w refers not to a pretense to evil, but to the danger of being "completely abandoned to wickedness or folly" (WHYBRAY, Ecclesiastes, 121). See also MURPHY, Ecclesiastes, 70.

¹⁷ M. STRANGE, The Question of Moderation in Eccl 7:15-18 (CUSST 199; Washington, D.C. 1969) 64.

¹⁸ STRANGE, The Question of Moderation, 62.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ Cf. Qoh 6,12; 8,7 and 10, 14.

²¹ SEOW, Ecclesiastes, 267.

²² Strange asserts that because Qoheleth clearly states "there are no righteous", the idea of the golden mean is not present in this passage, since logically, one cannot be warned to not become something that is inherently impossible (STRANGE, The Question of Moderation, 87).

²³ SEOW, Ecclesiastes, 267.

²⁴ BROWN, Ecclesiastes, 82.

²⁵ SEOW, Ecclesiastes, 268 and M. FOX, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up. A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids, MI 1999) 260.

²⁶ Cf. Qoh 2, 24; 3,13 and 6,2.

²⁷ The meaning of the root )cy in v. 18 is ambiguous but not problematic. Some prefer the primary lexical meaning, "to go out", and see this clause as assurance that the one who is balanced "goes out" or "escapes" from Mlk, that is, the fates of desolation and death listed in vv. 16-17. Others prefer a Mishnaic Hebrew usage of the root meaning "to do one’s duty" (GORDIS, Koheleth, 267; G. OGDEN, Qoheleth [Sheffield, England 1987] 116; FOX, A Time to Tear Down, 262) or "to fulfill obligations" (STRANGE, The Question of Moderation, 101). In this sense, the demonstrative pronouns must refer to the warnings against extreme behavior, and not extreme behavior itself, and assures that the one who fears God will succeed with "both" of the instructions; that is, they will fulfill their calling with a balanced perspective (STRANGE, The Question of Moderation, 101; CRENSHAW, Ecclesiastes, 142; FOX, A Time to Tear Down, 262). The verse itself gives little indication as to which meaning is preferred, but clearly, both options assure some measure of prosperity as a result of balance.

²⁸ SEOW, Ecclesiastes, 268.

²⁹ BROWN, Ecclesiastes, 82

³⁰ SEOW, Ecclesiastes, 268.

³¹ The relationship of v. 19 to this passage is debated. Seow states that v. 19 is an example of overconfidence that is warned against in v. 16, with v. 20, in parallel, speaking against overconfidence in righteousness (SEOW, Ecclesiastes, 269). Barton prefers to view the verse as a gloss (G.A. BARTON, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes [Edinburgh, Scotland 1908] 144) while Fox radically emends the text by moving the verse to follow 7,12 (FOX, A Time to Tear Down, 256-7). Gordis notes that vv. 16-17 and vv. 19-20 lie in chiastic arrangement, with v.19 giving the reason for v.17, and v.20 giving the reason for v.16 (Gordis, Koheleth, 268). It seems likely that the verse functions to tilt the golden mean in the direction of wisdom/righteousness (Cf. BROWN, Ecclesiastes, 82). The golden mean, as will be demonstrated, is not the average between two extremes, and so, it seems that Qoheleth, even as he warns against hyper-righteousness, still extols righteousness as a beneficial trait in humanity. After all, evil is ubiquitous and unavoidable (cf. Qoh 7,20-22), and so righteousness is to be favored, even as the extreme of it is to be avoided.

³² Among those arguing against this relationship is M. Fox, who states that even though Qoheleth reflects the notions of moderation, it does not parallel the Aristotelian mean, which Fox defines as the mid-point between two extremes. He contrasts this with the idea of Qoheleth, who recognizes the importance of avoiding extremes, but still places emphasis on the pole of wisdom (FOX, A Time to Tear Down, 260). Additionally, W. Brown is careful to note that though Qoheleth calls for moderation, he does not call for a "muddled mean", where values are mixed and the average is held supreme (W. BROWN, Ecclesiastes [Lousiville, KY 1989] 82). Similarly, Murphy states that this doctrine is not the golden mean, seeing the Greek golden mean(s) as an advocate of "nothing in excess" (MURPHY, Ecclesiastes, 73). Clearly, though, neither Qoheleth nor Aristotle view the mean as a doctrine of averages in action, and so, the above seem to involve a misunderstanding of Aristotle’s mean.

³³ J. BARNES, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle (Cambridge 1995) 217.

³⁴ S.R.L. CLARK, Aristotle’s Man: Speculations Upon Aristotelian Anthropology (Oxford 1975) 96.

³⁵ "By the intermediate relatively to us that which is neither too much nor too little – and this is not one, nor the same for all....if ten pounds are too much for a particular person to eat and two too little, it does not follow that the trainer will order six pounds; for this is also perhaps too much for the person who is to take it....Thus a master of any art avoids excess and defect, but seeks the intermediate and chooses this – the intermediate not in the object by relatively to us". Nichomachean Ethics, Book 2, 1106^a31 to 1106^b6. Translation from The Complete Works of Aristotle (ed. J. BARNES) (Princeton, NJ 1984) 1747.

³⁶ Nichomachean Ethics, Book 2, 1109^b2-3. Translation from BARNES, The Complete Works , 1751.

³⁷ Aristotle makes clear that there are some things (intellect, money for the liberal man, power for the brave man) which are always favored (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 10, 1177^b28 to 1178^b7.), while other actions (spite, shamelessness, envy, adultery, theft, murder) are to be avoided at all times (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 2, 1107^a9-26).

³⁸ CLARK, Aristotle’s Man, 84.

³⁹ Line 98 of the Pseudo-Phokylida. Translation from ibid., 79.

⁴⁰ D. B. LEVINE, "Symposium and the Polis", Theognis of Megara (ed. T. J. Figueira and G. Nagy) (Baltimore 1985) 180.

⁴¹ Theognis, Lines 219-220 and Lines 331-332. Translation from ibid., 181.

⁴² Theognis, Lines 837-840. Translation from ibid., 183.

⁴³ V.C. STEVENS, "Opposites, Reversals, and Ambiguities: The Unsettled World of Theognis", Theognis, 159-75.

⁴⁴ M. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism (trans. J. Bowden) (London 1974), I, 123.

⁴⁵ Ibid., I, 117.

⁴⁶ C. WHITLEY, Koheleth (BZAW 145; New York 1979) 166.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 170. Briefly, the Stoics held that Zeus created all things; that all would be destroyed in a universal conflagration that only Zeus would survive; and that Zeus would re-create the world after the destruction. The Epicureans also held a similar view of a cycle of creation, destruction and re-creation.

⁴⁸ Among the plethora of parallels that Braun cites are Homer, Xenophanes, Archilocus, Sophocles, Euripides, Epicurus, Solon, and Hesiod. Braun also includes comprehensive tables which present ties between passages in Qoheleth and Greek works in lyric poetry, philosophy and drama. R. BRAUN, Kohelet und die Frühhellenistiche Popularphilosophie (BZAW 130; New York 1973) 146-149.

⁴⁹ Hengel proposes a dating between 270-220 BCE, noting that this era of massive change in Greek religion provided the perfect atmosphere for the skepticism of Qoheleth (HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism, I, 116). Whitley poses an even later date, 175-164 BCE, based on the broad stroke of Epicurean ideas in the text which "presupposes a sustained contact with Epicurean thought which could hardly be possible before the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes" (WHITLEY, Koheleth, 165).

⁵⁰ Among the finds that support this date are Greek vessels found at Tyre, at Tel Hadar, located along the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and at Tel Dor, located along the Mediterranean Sea, all of which date to the 11^th century BCE. E. STERN, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (New York 2001) 217 and J.C. WALDBAUM, "Early Greek Contacts with the Southern Levant 1000-600 B.C.: The Eastern Perspective", BASOR 293 (1994) 57.

⁵¹ WALDBAUM, "Early Greek Contacts", 60.

⁵² See W. NIEMEIER, "Archaic Greeks in the Orient: Textual and Archaeological Evidence", BASOR 322 (2001) 16-24 for a comprehensive survey of material and historical evidence of the presence of Greek mercenaries in the Near East during this early period. Niemeier also notes that neither the traders nor the mercenaries formed resident Greek communities until the middle of the 7^th century BCE. Before that time, Greek presence in the Levant was in the form of an enoikismos, small community colonies (pp. 12-13).

⁵³ STERN, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 221.

⁵⁴ For elements of Greek culture evidenced by the Philistines, see L. STAGER, "The Impact of the Sea Peoples", The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (ed. T. LEVY) (New York 1995) 332-348. Notable in this discussion is the evidence of an increase in hog raising during the early Iron Age, an activity which was completely absent in the highlands, and likely echoing "the Mycenaean and Greek positive attitude toward pork" (p. 344). Stager also notes that the excavations of the Pentapolis, Ekron in particular, reveal a "full-blown urban tradition on the landscape, quite different from the Canaanite patterns which preceded them" (p. 345). Religious elements may also have been imported by the Philistines, as well. A sanctuary in Ekron revealed a large circular hearth, an unknown feature in the Levant, but one which "has a long history in the public and domestic architecture of the Aegean, Cypriot and Anatolian worlds", as well as being a central feature of Mycenaean palaces at Pylos, Mycenae and Tiryns (p. 347). As a whole, Stager sees the Pentapolis as evidence of an "urban imposition", which was in "harmony with that of the Aegean world" (pp. 347-348).

⁵⁵ The dating of the inscription is surmised from various Assyrian records. The annals of Esharhaddon (680-699 BCE) mention records that mention Achish / Ikausu, the builder of the temple. His father, Padi, is also mentioned in the taxation records of Sennacherib. S. GITIN et al., "A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron", IEJ 47 (1997) 9.

⁵⁶ Gitin, Dothan and Naveh note that the script of the inscription is not the same as those of other Philistine inscriptions from the 7^th century BCE. They states that most of the letters are similar to Phoenician or Hebrew script, but "since one would expect a more developed Hebrew or Phoenician script in the first half of the seventh century B.C.E., it seems likely that the script belongs neither to the Phoenician or Hebrew series, but rather to some peculiar local script", ibid., 13.

⁵⁷ The entire inscription, with the ptnyh emendation, reads "The temple (which) Achish son of Padi son of Ysd son of Ada son of Ya’ir ruler of Ekron, built for Ptnyh, his Lady. May she bless him and keep him and prolong his days and bless his land". A. DEMSKY, "Discovering a Goddess", BAR 24 (1998) 56.

⁵⁸ The original excavators of the site preferred the reading ptgyh, seeing it as the name of a previously unknown deity, perhaps with the gyh domain of the term reflecting the Greek deity Gea (GITIN et al., "A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron", 11-12). Aaron Demsky, however, prefers the reading ptnyh, reading the middle letter as an aborted nun, and not a gimel (A. DEMSKY, "The Name of the Godess of Ekron: A New Reading", JANES 47 [1997] 4)

⁵⁹ STERN, Archaeology, 227. The term appears as early as the 14^th century, in Mycenaean inscriptions, and as late as texts from the 3rd century BCE. Quite often, it is used in conjunction with the name of a specific goddess, but it is also often used as a term of veneration, or as a title (DEMSKY, "The Name of the Goddess", 4)

⁶⁰ Ibid., 4.

⁶¹ L. GRABBE, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis, MN 1992) I, 165.

⁶² M. SMITH, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York 1971) 75-78. The author notes that with the exception of more a centralied legal system, most of the political and cultural institutions of the Hellenistic empire was derived from the empires of the Near East and not the city-states of ancient Greece.

⁶³ A more contemporary type of this phenomenon, where two cultures blend to form a novel culture, may be seen in the development of the Anglo-Indian culture during the British colonization of India, or the "Westernization" of many Asian nations after World War II (GRABBE, Judaism, I,167-8).

⁶⁴ SMITH, Palestinian Parties, 74-6.

⁶⁵ GRABBE, Judaism, I, 165.

⁶⁶ L. LEVINE, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity. Conflict or Confluence? (Seattle, WA 1998) 18.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 19.

⁶⁸ C. L. SEOW, "The Dating of Qoheleth", JBL 115 (1996) 666.

⁶⁹ sdrp and Mgtp, ibid., 646-650.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 650-654.

⁷¹ Ibid., 657-660. Seow undercuts the argument that such idioms as "under the sun", "see the sun", "to do well", etc. are of Greek origin.

⁷² Ibid., 660-665.

⁷³ Ibid., 666.

⁷⁴ Seow notes that the root +l#$ in Qoheleth has a technical sense of "having the right of disposal" and that this usage is limited to the Persian period (ibid., 653). Rudman demonstrates, though, that this technical use of the root is also attested in the Hellenistic period. (D. RUDMAN, "A Note on the Dating of Ecclesiastes", CBQ 61 [1999] 52).

⁷⁵ RUDMAN, "A Note on the Dating of Ecclesiastes", 52.

⁷⁶ J. LINDENBERGER, "Ahiqar", Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. CHARLESWORTH) (New York 1985) 481. Lindenberger notes that the language of the text lends evidence for a North Syrian origin, while the proverbial section of the text shows evidence for an Armaic original.

⁷⁷ Ibid., 479.

⁷⁸ Lines 61-64 of Column Ten. Translation from B. PORTEN and A. YARDENI, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Egypt (Winona Lake, IN 1993) III, 45.

⁷⁹ LINDENBERGER, "Ahiqar", 480. The work remained popular into the Christian era, with versions being published in Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Russian and Serbian, among others.

⁸⁰ "The Instruction of the Vizier Ptah Hotep", translated by J. Wilson (ANET, 412).

⁸¹ The Teachings of Buddha (ed. P. CAIRNS) (New York 1998) 132.

⁸² Ibid., 132. The "Tathagata" is often a term used as the highest attribute of the Buddha.

⁸³ Ibid., 43.

⁸⁴ Ibid.

⁸⁵ The prince Siddahata Gautama, later to be known as the Buddha, lived from 560 to 480 BC. The development of the religion came shortly after his death, with the first set of major councils, held to rehearse and commit his teachings to memory, held shortly after his death He was born a prince and "there was no rival among the youths and men of India who could surpass him in any test, bodily or mental". He is also credited with keen observational skills, so that he saw "with his mental eye all the misery and sorrow of the world" and "the pains of pleasure and the inevitable certainty of death that hovers over every being" (ibid., 14, 19).

⁸⁶ Ibid., 1.

⁸⁷ Ibid., 44.

⁸⁸ J. CHENG, Confucius as Teacher (Petaling Jaya, Malaysia 1993) 291.

⁸⁹ "The master said, ‘Perfect is the virtue which is according to its mean. Rare for a long time has been its practice among the people’" (The Annalects, 6,27. Translation from CHENG, Confucius, 286). Also, "A Superior Man of the world...does not insist on doing anything or abstaining from anything, he stops at what is right and proper (the Mean)" (The Annalects 4, 10. Translation from ibid., 288).

⁹⁰ In matters of government, Confucius emphasized governmental control of public policy, but also advocated what might now be termed laissez-faire policy. Likewise, Confucius emphasized an individual’s social obligations, as well as the individual consciences, economic condition and personality (ibid., 289).

⁹¹ "Much of the effort of Confucius in teaching his disciples was spent to keep them in the Mean". The Analects, 11,21 recounts an episode where two students posed questions regarding an identical course of action each sought to take. One, he counseled to seek advice from his family, while to the other, he counseled to move ahead with the course of action. When another student asked why he gave conflicting advice, Confucius responded by noting that one student was slow and needed to be pushed forward, while another was very energetic, and needed to be held back (ibid., 287).