1. The Particle μέν and its Functions

In Greek grammars and lexica, the particle μέν is most frequently regarded as a correlative particle that introduces material corresponding with a following clause or word, usually introduced by δέ.Footnote ¹ This function has best been described recently in discourse-pragmatic terms by Greek linguists Stephen Levinsohn and Steven Runge, on the basis of their research on Koine Greek, and Egbert Bakker, on the basis of his work on Attic Greek. They describe μέν as a prospective or anticipatory particle that alerts the reader to forthcoming, semantically corresponding content (that is typically introduced by δέ). Levinsohn, for example, writes: ‘The term prospective is used in connection with μέν to mean that it anticipates, or at least implies, a corresponding sentence containing δέ.’Footnote ² Similarly, Runge states: ‘Μέν signals the presence of one common constraint: anticipation of a related sentence that follows.’Footnote ³ Bakker is in line with both of them, arguing that ‘[t]he presence of mén … does no more than signal that the clause will acquire its intended meaning only in combination with the following one, to which it anticipates’.Footnote ⁴ This is also the function that μέν exhibits in the early Koine period, as made evident by its use in the LXX and contemporaneous papyri. Based on these corpora, I have described the discourse-pragmatic function of μέν in the following way:

For example, in P.Cair.Zen. i.59107 μέν is used to signal a correlation between its sentence and the following one (which contains δέ), and thus ties the two together:

We also find prospective μέν without a corresponding δέ. In UPZ i.125, for example, μέν is used at the beginning of a list detailing payment penalties for one Peteimouthes. Its presence signals that further distinct penalties will shortly follow:

To put this prospective function of μέν simply: μέν provides a procedural instruction to the reader/hearer to link forthcoming material with the μέν clause.Footnote ⁶

However, there is another function sometimes ascribed to μέν. Some Koine grammars and lexica posit that μέν can function in an emphatic role, much like it sometimes did in Classical Greek.Footnote ⁷ The idea behind this is that μέν derived from and was a weakened form of μήν and could thus be used as an affirmative or emphatic marker, typically glossed as ‘indeed’ or ‘certainly’, particularly when it is not followed by a corresponding particle.Footnote ⁸ Stanley Porter, for example, writes: ‘The particle occurs alone with emphatic value in many instances.’Footnote ⁹ Chamberlain understands μέν as intensive and writes: ‘It is a weakened form of μήν. It was originally used alone with no thought of a corresponding δέ.’Footnote ¹⁰ With regard to Koine lexica, Louw and Nida's lexicon places emphatic μέν in a separate entry with γέ and δή,Footnote ¹¹ and Danker begins his entry on the particle by labelling it an ‘affirming particle’ and noting its relationship to μήν.Footnote ¹²

Interestingly, there are some grammars and lexica that do not posit or say anything about an ‘emphatic μέν’ in their discussions of the particle. Blass, Debrunner and Funk, for instance, only mention the particle's correlative function in their grammar.Footnote ¹³ The same is true of Daniel Wallace, Samuel Green, James Moulton and Nigel Turner, and Takamitsu Muraoka.Footnote ¹⁴ Unfortunately, these grammarians and lexicographers do not provide a reason for the absence of the ‘emphatic’ category in their works, though the fact that they did not see any reason to include it may itself be significant.

2. A Diachronic Understanding of μένFootnote ¹⁵

The issue at hand is whether μέν retains some degree of the affirmative or emphatic force it held in Classical Greek. The traditional Greek grammarians wrestled with this, being aware that such a force does not appear to be present in Koine, or even in late Classical Greek, yet wanting to hold on to it to a certain extent. Consider A. T. Robertson's discussion on the particle:

Robertson acknowledges that the original force of μέν had been left to μήν. In instances of μέν solitarium, though, he sees some of that force retained, postulating that it may have ‘a concessive or restrictive force’. However, it is important to note, with regard to ‘the old idiom that survived in vernacular and poetry’, that Robertson seems to be drawing on the work of Antonius Jannaris, but Jannaris only claims this use of μέν for μήν in Classical Attic and earlier verse, owing to the interference of metrical quantity.Footnote ¹⁷ Shortly after this discussion, Robertson also argues for instances of μέν solitarium that imply contrast.Footnote ¹⁸ J. D. Denniston, who focuses on Classical Greek, is more decisive than Robertson in his description of the particle. He writes:

Denniston does note an emphatic function for μέν but sees this sense as becoming less prominent, even before the Koine period. Moreover, he later states, ‘[p]reparatory μέν, already fully developed in Homer, ousts emphatic μέν from the field in the fifth and fourth centuries, and many cases which appear at first sight emphatic are really elliptically antithetical’.Footnote ²⁰ Therefore, at least according to Denniston, it would seem that even before the end of the Classical period, μέν had lost its emphatic use and solely exhibited a prospective function. Lastly, consider Jannaris’ remarks:

Thus, as stated by the above grammarians, μέν was originally emphatic but came to function as a prospective marker, leaving the emphatic use to μήν, at least sometime before the end of the Classical period. Such a shift in the particle's function is understandable. Discourse markers tend to develop as they undergo semantic shifts and as certain constructions and typical contexts of use become conventionalised.Footnote ²² On this, Diana Lewis writes:

In the case of μέν, ‘affirmative/emphatic μέν’ was phasing out in Classical Greek and ‘prospective μέν’ was becoming the standard usage before the Koine period. From a diachronic perspective, it is likely that the prospective function of μέν was related to its old emphatic use and naturally developed from it. Denniston makes an excellent point when he writes: ‘As this process [emphasis] naturally entails the isolation of one idea from others, μέν acquires a concessive or antithetical sense, and serves to prepare the mind for a contrast of greater or lesser sharpness.’Footnote ²⁴ As noted by Lewis above, the new sense of a discourse marker will overlap for a period with the old function, but over time, the split between the two will become more distinct as the new sense is conventionalised and, in the case of μέν, as the old sense falls out of the language.

Even if μέν developed from μήν as an allegro form of the emphatic particle,Footnote ²⁵ such a development (and the fact that both particles remained in the language) would appear to point to a functional (albeit pragmatically motivated and diachronically related) divergence. Understandably, μέν and μήν would share a mixed usage for a period of time while the distinct prospective use of μέν was still being concretised, but this period of overlap is viewed by the historical grammarians cited above as having ended well before the Koine period. This is ostensibly affirmed by those Koine grammarians and lexicographers mentioned earlier who only posit a correlative or prospective function for μέν. Despite this, there are still Koine Greek grammars and lexica that assert the emphatic category.

3. ‘Emphatic μέν’ in the New Testament

Given the above, it would be fruitful to investigate some of the occurrences of μέν in the New Testament that are commonly understood as belonging to the so-called ‘emphatic’ or ‘affirmative’ category.Footnote ²⁶ The historical evidence strongly suggests that ‘emphatic μέν’ would not occur in Greek as late as the New Testament. Does the historical evidence need to be re-evaluated or are there other avenues for explaining these uses of μέν in the New Testament that follow the historical evidence and remain consistent with the synchronic data?

The first example may be found in Matt 3.11. Here it has been suggested that μέν should be regarded as emphatic and rendered by ‘indeed’.Footnote ²⁷

If the verse is understood in the sense of ‘I, indeed, baptise you with water for repentance, but the one …’, one is left wondering what exactly μέν is emphasising. There is not a need to affirm the truth of the statement, nor would it make sense for John to be emphasising his baptism, as the point of the communication is to place the focus on the baptism of the one who comes after him. Even in English, the suggested gloss, ‘indeed’, is not clearly emphatic. If anything, it does not emphasise so much as anticipate the upcoming contrastive switch in John's speech. This is clear in Leon Morris’ assessment of the passage. He writes: ‘At this point John turns to his practice of baptism and relates it to another baptism that would follow. I indeed is emphatic; it sets John in contrast with the stronger one who is to come.’Footnote ²⁸ Morris seems to understand correctly what μέν is accomplishing, anticipating the forthcoming related content, but unhelpfully labels this as ‘emphatic’. Such a label does not accurately describe the particle or its relation to the following content, thus adding nothing to the argument and potentially confusing the reader regarding what the particle communicates.

The presence of μέν can be better explained as functioning prospectively. In view of the preposed topic switches (ἐγώ and ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος), the verbal repetition of βαπτίζω/βαπτίσει, and the switch between the instruments of baptism (ὕδατι and πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί), it is clear that μέν anticipates the correlated material of the latter two thirds of the verse (which is introduced with a δέ). The particle serves to strengthen the connection and contrast between the two persons and baptisms presented. It is not enough for John the Baptist to state what he does with regard to baptism. He has something more to say that is intimately and necessarily connected to his first statement; in contrast to him, there is someone else coming who is greater than him and has a superior baptism. Thus, μέν is not employed for emphatic purposes but rather to call attention to this connection, instructing the hearer/reader to anticipate the related content and to regard the two propositions as a cohesive unit.Footnote ²⁹ By understanding the function of μέν, the reader comes to a fuller appreciation of John's purpose in this verse. The particle is not necessary to John's speech, and, therefore, its use is purposefully motivated. John uses μέν to create anticipation in his hearers for an upcoming switch. In this way, he is encouraging them to regard what he is saying about his baptism as only a part of the intended communication; it is not the last thing to be said on the matter at hand. The description of his baptism then serves as a foil for the baptism of the one who comes after him. John could have communicated the same propositional content without μέν, but by virtue of its use, he ensures that the connection between the two correlated parts of the communication will not be missed.Footnote ³⁰

Another occurrence is in Acts 4.16. Dana and Mantey regard this instance of μέν as emphatic and thus translate it as ‘really’.Footnote ³¹

The emphatic reading, ‘For that a really remarkable sign has happened …’, understands the particle to be highlighting the great extent to which the sign was remarkable. The first question one must ask is, even if μέν has an emphatic function in addition to its prospective function, why not use a less ambiguous form, such as an adverb like σφόδρα or ἀληθῶς? Moreover, this instance of μέν can be explained as functioning as it consistently does in Koine, anticipating forthcoming related material. In this case, μέν prepares the reader for the proverbial ‘other side of the coin’, the content of v. 17. It may be argued that this cannot be the case as there is not a corresponding δέ. However, the presence of δέ is not a necessary condition for the prospective function of μέν. Prototypically, μέν will be followed by a δέ, but it can correspond with other particles as well, such as ἀλλά (as is the case here) or καί,Footnote ³² and is even sufficient by itself.Footnote ³³ Verses 16b and 17, then, are to be viewed as a cohesive unit that offers the relevant full consideration in answer to the question posed in v. 16a, ‘What should we do with these men?’ The religious leaders first affirm that a remarkable sign has happened, but that is not to be understood as the end of the conversation. There is more to be said, and thus μέν is employed (1) to instruct the hearer/reader to anticipate the forthcoming related material that sets the affirmation aside and provides the decision, and (2) to instruct the hearer/reader to then mentally process the material in which μέν occurs together with the anticipated content.

Another μέν that has been regarded as emphatic occurs in 1 Thess 2.18.

BDAG understands this μέν to be emphasising the subject of the clause in a contrastive context in which there is no expressed correlation, though the context may permit the contrast to be supplied by the reader.Footnote ³⁴ With regard to the claim that the particle is emphasising the subject, this is ambiguous. It is not clear what is accomplished by such emphasis. In addition, the salient piece of information in the μέν clause is that Paul attempted to come several times. If anything, the frequency with which he attempted to visit the Thessalonians should be what is emphasised here. Thus, rather than regarding μέν as emphatic, one may understand the particle here to be creating the anticipation of related content relevant to the preceding topic of wanting to visit the Thessalonians. There are two options available for the reader. The first is that the particle anticipates the final sentence καὶ ἐνέκοψεν ἡμᾶς ὁ σατανᾶς, correlating with the καί.Footnote ³⁵ This verse would then be similar to Ex. 2 (Acts 4.16), in that the ‘other side of the coin’ is given in the anticipated content: they all wanted to visit the Thessalonians; on the one hand, Paul even tried on many occasions to visit them but, on the other, they were constantly hindered by Satan. However, given the mismatch of persons (ἐγώ … Παῦλος vs ἡμᾶς), this option may not be regarded as viable (though I do not think this is a necessary conclusion, since ἡμᾶς could simply be including those who accompanied Paul when he attempted to visit). The other option is that μέν implies the correlated content and the reader must supply it. This is where BDAG may be on the right track. In this case, the implied content could be either ἐγὼ δὲ οὐκ ἠδυνάμην ‘but I was not able’ or οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι ἐπείρασαν ‘and the others tried’.Footnote ³⁶ That μέν can imply its corresponding content is not a new idea. Denniston, for example, provides a sub-category for ‘preparatory μέν’ that is devoted to instances of μέν through which the corresponding clauses are implied. In fact, for him, this is the category wherein μέν solitarium fits. He writes:

Whichever option one chooses, whether the μέν anticipates the sentence at the end of the verse or implies the corresponding content, its function is synchronically consistent with how it is used throughout the New Testament and in early Koine Greek and is diachronically consistent with the shifts that the particle underwent.Footnote ³⁸

Rom 10.1 has also been cited as containing a μέν that emphasises the subject of its clause.Footnote ³⁹ This, it would seem, is due to the fact that there is no δέ following it, even though there is clear corresponding material and despite the historical agreement among grammarians that μέν can correspond to particles other than δέ (or to no particle at all).Footnote ⁴⁰

The relationship between an emphatic μέν and ἡ εὐδοκία is tenuous at best. There is nothing in the context to suggest that Paul is emphasising his desire or what exactly ἡ μὲν εὐδοκία would mean emphatically. Some commentators follow Blass and DebrunnerFootnote ⁴¹ in suggesting that ἡ μὲν εὐδοκία without a corresponding δέ results in the meaning ‘so far as it depends on my desire’.Footnote ⁴² This would appear to be an emphatic reading of μέν (though it is not labelled as such), but it is not convincing. First, if an emphatic reading were intended, a clear, unambiguously emphatic form, such as μήν, δή or ἀληθῶς, could have been used. Second, Blass and Debrunner offer no discussion nor much support for such a reading, other than noting that μέν without a corresponding δέ is ‘excusable or even good classical usage’.Footnote ⁴³ Lastly, it is stretching well beyond the limits of μέν, even the so-called ‘emphatic μέν’, to regard ‘so far as it depends on my desire’ as a legitimate rendering of ἡ μὲν εὐδοκία.

A more linguistically and exegetically satisfying approach is to regard μέν as maintaining is typical function. The particle is used here with a narrow scope, that is to say, it is being used at the word level of the discourse. It is instructing the reader to expect further material that corresponds to ἡ εὐδοκία τῆς ἐμῆς καρδίας and to read the two connected utterances together (ἡ μὲν εὐδοκία τῆς ἐμῆς καρδίας —> καὶ ἡ δέησις πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν). The interpretive value here is that the reader understands why Paul made the choice to use μέν, a particle that is not semantically necessary, in order to tie these two noun phrases together explicitly. For the apostle, the desire of his heart and his prayer to God are two intimately connected parts of a whole, and highlighting that connection was important enough for him to employ μέν.Footnote ⁴⁴

Louw and Nida's lexicon provides John 11.6 as an instance of ‘emphatic μέν’.Footnote ⁴⁵ Once again, this interpretation seems to be based on the absence of a corresponding δέ despite the presence of corresponding material in the next verse.

It is not clearly evident how this μέν could even be construed as emphatic or affirmative given that there is nothing to emphasise or affirm in the sentence. Moreover, Louw and Nida do not render the particle in their translation of the verse, thus begging the question of its emphatic contribution, even if it is a ‘relatively weak emphasis’.Footnote ⁴⁶ If one were to argue that μέν is emphasising the temporal adverb τότε,Footnote ⁴⁷ he or she must then ask to what end it is emphasised. The answer could only be that it is ‘emphasised’ for the purpose of contrasting with the forthcoming ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο, which is how Sanders and Mastin explain their ‘emphatic’ reading of the particle.Footnote ⁴⁸ At this point, however, it would seem that ‘emphatic’ is being used as a conveniently ambiguous catch-all category. There is nothing emphatic about τότε μέν. A more satisfactory and linguistically consistent explanation is that the μέν is prospective and thus anticipates the temporal change, signalled by the preposed ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο, and the associated event in v. 7, Jesus deciding to go to Judea.Footnote ⁴⁹ The material of vv. 6b–7, then, is to be understood as a cohesive unit relevant to Jesus hearing that Lazarus was sick. It informs the reader that Jesus responded to the information in two ways: (1) he waited two more days and (2) then decided to go to Judea. John had a choice to use μέν here; it is not necessary to the propositional content. Why is linking these responses important? Why anticipate Jesus’ decision in v. 7 to go to Judea by using μέν in v. 6? The answer is found in v. 11, when Jesus informs his disciples that Lazarus has died (‘fallen asleep’) and he plans to go to wake him up. The interpreter then understands the connection between John 11.6 and 7 – that upon hearing of Lazarus' death, Jesus waited two days and then went – to be a salient one. The explicit correlating of the two verses reveals what Jesus had planned all along: to wait until Lazarus died to leave for Bethany so that he could raise him from the dead. This connection presents Jesus in a specific way that John wants his hearers/readers to pick up on. By using μέν, he highlights the connection, ensuring that the hearer/reader does not miss it.

Another ‘emphatic μέν’ provided by Louw and Nida is in 1 Cor 6.7.Footnote ⁵⁰

Here too, however, μέν is not emphatic.Footnote ⁵¹ Rather, the presence of μέν alerts the reader to the corresponding rhetorical questions at the end of the verse.Footnote ⁵² For the reader of the New Testament, such an understanding of the function of μέν provides insight into how Paul is structuring his argument. Paul has something more to say. He does not leave it at the fact that the Corinthians have failed, but rather he poses the options alternative to that failure that should have been obvious to them from the start. In order to ensure that this connection is not missed, so that the Corinthians anticipate some related content, and that these utterances are read together as a cohesive unit, Paul uses μέν to signal to the hearer/reader that related material is forthcoming, and he thereby highlights the connection between the utterances.

Rom 1.8 contains a μέν that does not seem to correspond to any material whatsoever and thus is sometimes regarded as emphatic.Footnote ⁵³ However, there are three more satisfactory explanations that can be given that also remain consistent with the prospective function of μέν.

Naturally, one would expect something to the effect of δεύετερον δέ to follow soon after. However, Paul never provides a second point. The first option for understanding the μέν in this verse is that Paul simply never made it to his other points, that is, he forgot, owing to being wrapped up in his present discourse, and thus the reader is left with an anacoluthon. This is certainly possible and is the explanation given by both Robertson and Green.Footnote ⁵⁴ This option is also entertained by both Douglas Moo and Morris in their commentaries on Romans.Footnote ⁵⁵ Another explanation is provided by Runge, who states that Paul had a rhetorical purpose here in creating anticipation for the reader but never returning to his other points. He argues that the ‘feint’ draws extra attention to Paul's larger purpose at the beginning of the letter, that is, to announce his visit and to provide an exposition of the Gospel.Footnote ⁵⁶ A third option is that μέν anticipates the ὅτι clause, which is then understood to explicate the content of the prayer (‘First, (μέν) I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you that your faith is proclaimed in all the world’).Footnote ⁵⁷ Of course, this suggestion does not answer the question as to why πρῶτον is used as well. However, if πρῶτον is regarded as an adverb of degree (e.g. ‘Above all, I thank my God …’),Footnote ⁵⁸ the issue does not arise. Thus, in whichever case, the normative function of μέν is maintained. Moreover, each of the above explanations is more viable than an emphatic reading. It is not clear how this μέν could be emphatic. If anything, as with Ex. 1 (Matt 3.11) and Ex. 5 (John 11.6) above, it is only ‘emphatic’ insomuch as it creates anticipation for the anticipated correlative member. Some have suggested the translation ‘in fact’ for μέν here,Footnote ⁵⁹ but at that point μέν has lost any emphatic force and one wonders whether such a rendering has any relationship to a supposed function of μέν or is more the result of an old function being retained and ascribed to μέν when convenient.

4. Concluding Remarks

There are only a handful of occurrences of μέν in the New Testament that have been labelled ‘emphatic’ by various grammars and lexica, and there is rarely ever agreement over which occurrences do exhibit this use. Most often, those identified as ‘emphatic’ tend to be instances in which μέν corresponds to forthcoming material but correlates with a particle other than δέ or no particle at all. The few others are when μέν implies its corresponding material, the occurrence is a case of anacoluthon or strategic rhetoric, or the corresponding δέ is simply further separated than expected.Footnote ⁶⁰ One is able to explain these apparently exceptional usages under the same prospective function without needing to appeal to an archaic vestigial usage from the Classical period by understanding the diachronic development of μέν, its discourse-pragmatic function in the Koine period, and by being aware of its use and interaction with various contexts in Koine. The above New Testament examples are evidence of this. They can all be explained more consistently and satisfactorily by maintaining the diachronically evinced and synchronically established function of μέν rather than attributing to it a function that it lost some centuries earlier. For the interpreter of the New Testament, this understanding of μέν provides insight into how authors conceived of correlations in the discourse, subsequently structured the discourse, and highlighted those correlations to which they wanted to draw the reader's attention.

Hence, in view of the diachronic data and what can be observed in the Koine period, the description of prospective μέν provided earlier is a description of the particle's sole function in Koine: μέν provides a procedural instruction to the reader/hearer to link forthcoming material with the μέν clause. Despite the fact that the particle μέν is described as emphatic in Koine in some grammars and lexica, these claims are better understood as a case of diachronic confusion. That is to say, this category asserted for Koine μέν is based on Classical μέν having had this function.Footnote ⁶¹ However, first, an earlier use of the particle is not sufficient evidence to posit that same use in a later period. A word's function in one time period does not necessarily determine its function in every instantiation of the language throughout time. Second, as was observed above, the emphatic/affirmative use of the particle was already phasing out in Classical Greek. Third, the prospective function of μέν can be explained as having naturally developed from the old emphatic function. In the end, one is left wondering how an emphatic or affirmative category for Koine μέν could have been posited for so long. It seems that an archaic explanation of the particle was propagated at the expense of understanding the Koine prospective function better. Thus, on the basis of the historical evidence, the natural diachronic evolution of the particle and, most importantly, the function of μέν that can be observed in Koine Greek, it would seem that the so-called ‘emphatic μέν’, at least with respect to Koine, should simply be regarded as an historical footnote in the diachronic development of the particle.