Lexical Definition

‎μέν‎ mén (men) on the other hand ^G:PRT
a primary particle

even, indeed, so, some, truly, verily.

• properly, indicative of affirmation or concession (in fact)
• usually followed by a contrasted clause with ‎δέ‎ (this one, the former, etc.)

Abbott-Smith

μέν, conjunctive particle (originally a form of μήν), usually related to a following δέ or other adversative conjunction, and distinguishing the word or clause with which it stands from that which follows.
It is generally untranslatable and is not nearly so frequent in NT as in cl. Like δέ, it never stands first in a clause.
1. Answered by δέ or some other particle: μὲν . . . δέ, indeed . . . but, Mt 3:11, Lk 3:16, al.; with pronouns, ὃς μὲν . . . ὃς δέ, one . . . another, Mt 21:35, al.; pl., Phl 1:16*, 17*; ὃ μὲν . . . ὃ δὲ . . . ὃ δέ, some . . . some . . . some, Mt 13:8; τοῦτο μὲν . . . τοῦτο δέ, partly . . . partly, He 10:33; μὲν . . . ἔπειτα, Jo 11:6; μὲν . . . καί, Lk 8:5.
2. μέν solitarium, answered by no other particle: πρῶτον μέν (Bl., § 78, 5), Ro 1:8 3:2, I Co 11:18; μὲν οὖν in narrative, summing up what precedes or introducing something further (Bl., § 78, 5), so then, rather, nay rather: Lk 11:28 (WH, μενοῦν), Ac 1:6 9:31, al.; μὲν οὖν γε (Phl 3:8, WH): v.s. μενοῦνγε.

Abbott-Smith References

Liddell-Scott-Jones

μέν,

Particle, used partly to express certainty on the part of the speaker or writer; partly, and more commonly, to point out that the word or clause with which it stands is correlative to another word or clause that is to follow, the latter word or clause being introduced by δέ.

__A
__A.I μέν used absolutely to express certainty, not followed by correlative δέ, indeed, of a truth, synonymous with μήν, as appears from the Epic dialect and Ionic dialect form ἦ μέν in protestations and oaths (where Attic dialect used ἦ μήν), καί μοι ὄμοσσον, ἦ μ. μοι πρόφρων ἔπεσιν καὶ χερσὶν ἀρήξειν [μέν τοι τάδε πάντα τελείεται 8th c.BC: Odyssea Homerus Epicus “Odyssey” 14.160, compare 8th c.BC: Ilias Homerus Epicus “Illiad” 24.416; τοῦτον ἐξορκοῖ, ἦ μέν οἱ διηκονήσειν 5th c.BC: Herodotus Historicus 4.154, compare 5.93, etc.: with \_negative\_, οὐ μὲν γάρ τι κακὸν βασιλευέμεν 8th c.BC: Odyssea Homerus Epicus “Odyssey” 1.392, etc.; ὤμοσα, μὴ μὲν.. ἀναφῆναι 4.254, compare 5th c.BC: Herodotus Historicus 2.118, 179; ἔξαρνος ἦν, μὴ μὲν ἀποκτεῖναι [prev. author] 3.67, compare 99: without \_negative\_, ἀνδρὸς μὲν τόδε σῆμα πάλαι κατατεθνηῶτος 8th c.BC: Ilias Homerus Epicus “Illiad” 7.89 ">Refs 8th c.BC+]: also in Trag., ἀκτὴ μὲν ἥδε τῆς περιρρύτου χθονός [μέν 8th c.BC: Ilias Homerus Epicus “Illiad” 1.269, 9.632, etc.; οὐδὲ μὲν οὐδὲ.. 2.703, 12.212 ">Refs 8th c.BC+]; γε μέν, compare γε [Refs]
__A.I.2 an answering clause with δέ is sometimes implied, τὴν μὲν ἐγὼ σπουδῇ δάμνημ᾽ ἐπέεσσι her can I hardly subdue, [but all others easily], [Refs 8th c.BC+]; ὡς μὲν λέγουσι as indeed they say, [but as I believe not], [Refs 5th c.BC+]; καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἦν αὐτῷ πόλεμος (with no ἔπειτα δέ to follow), [Refs 5th c.BC+]; so νῦν μέν σ᾽ ἀφήσω I will let you go this time, [Refs 3rd c.BC+]: to give force to assertions made by a person respecting himself, wherein opposition to other persons is implied, ὡς μὲν ἐμῷ θυμῷ δοκεῖ [Refs 8th c.BC+]; δοκεῖν μέν μοι ἥξει τήμερον [τὸ πλοῖον] [Refs 5th c.BC+]: hence with the person pronoun, ἐγὼ μέν νυν θεοῖσι ἔχω χάριν [Refs 5th c.BC+]; ἐγὼ μὲν οὐδέν (i.e. θέλω) [Refs 5th c.BC+]: with the demonstrative pronoun, τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι [Refs 5th c.BC+] great indeed has been the change, [Refs 4th c.BC+]
__A.I.3 μέν is used alone in questions, when the answer is assumed, I take it, θέμις μὲν ἡμᾶς χρησμὸν εἰδέναι θεο; [Refs 5th c.BC+]; Ἕλλην μέν ἐστι καὶ Ἑλληνίζε; [Refs 5th c.BC+]
__A.II μέν followed by δέ in the correlative clause or clauses, on the one hand, on the other hand; commonly in Classical Gr., less frequently in later Gr. (rare in NT
__A.II.1 μέν.., δέ.. (or when the correlative clause is negative, μέν.., οὐδέ.., [Refs 8th c.BC+], to mark opposition, [Refs 8th c.BC+]—The opposed clauses commonly stand together, but are frequently separated by clauses, parenthetic or explanatory; e.g. μέν in [Refs 8th c.BC+]; in [μέν is answered by ἐπεὶ δέ">Refs 5th c.BC+] in <[μέν is answered by θαυμαστὸν δέ in 1.2.1. ">Refs]
__A.II.2 to connect a series of clauses containing different matter, though with no opposition, [μέν.., δεύτερος δέ.., τρίτος δέ.. [prev. work] 5.6.9 ">Refs 8th c.BC+]; τότε μέν.., τότε δέ.., at one time.., at another.., [Refs] ὁ μέν.., ὁ δέ..; τὸ μέν.., τὸ δέ.., etc.
__A.II.3 the principal word is frequently repeated, οἳ περὶ μὲν βουλὴν Δαναῶν, περὶ δ᾽ ἐστὲ μάχεσθαι [Refs 8th c.BC+]; χαλεπαίνει μὲν πρῳρεύς, χαλεπαίνει δὲ κυβερνήτης [Refs 5th c.BC+]
__A.II.4 one of the correlative clauses is sometimes independent, while the other takes the participle or some other dependent form, ἐβλασφήμει κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ.., μάρτυρα μὲν.. οὐδένα παρασχόμενος.., παρεκελεύετο δέ.. [μένα σ᾽ ἁδεῖα μὲν ἀντία δ᾽ οἴσω 5th c.BC: Sophocles Tragicus “Trachiniae” 123, compare “OC” 522 (bothlyr.); χωρὶς μὲν τοῦ ἐστερῆσθαι.., ἔτι δὲ καὶ.. δόξω ἀμελῆσαι 5th-6th c.BC: Plato Philosophus “Crito” 44 ">Refs 5th c.BC+] b.
__A.II.5 μέν and δέ frequently oppose two clauses, whereof one is subordinate to the other in meaning or emphasis, [μέν ποτε.. ἀντήρατε,.. νυνὶ δὲ ὀκνεῖτ᾽ ἐξιέναι (for εἰ.. ἀντάραντες νυνὶ ὀκνεῖτε) 4th c.BC: Demosthenes Orator 2.24, compare 5th c.BC: Euripides Tragicus “Iphigenia Taurica” 116, 5th c.BC: Lysias Orator 34.11, 5th-6th c.BC: Xenophon Historicus “Memorabilia” 2.7.11, etc.">Refs 5th c.BC+]: so in an anacoluthon, [Refs 8th c.BC+]
__A.II.6 μέν is not always answered by δέ, but frequently by other equivalent Particles, as ἀλλά, μέντοι, 5th c.BC: Herodotus Historicus 1.36, 5th c.BC: Sophocles Tragicus “Philoctetes” 350, 4th c.BC: Demosthenes Orator 21.189, etc.:—by ἀτάρ, 8th c.BC: Ilias Homerus Epicus “Illiad” 6.84, 124, 4th-5th c.BC: Aeschylus Tragicus “Prometheus Vinctus” 342, 5th c.BC: Sophocles Tragicus “Oedipus Tyrannus” 1051s q., 5th-6th c.BC: Plato Philosophus “Theaetetus” 172c, etc. (so μέν.., αὐτάρ">Refs 8th c.BC+] in Epic dialect, [μέν.., εἶτα.. 5th c.BC: Sophocles Tragicus “Electra” 261 ">Refs 8th c.BC+]; πρῶτον μέν.., μετὰ τοῦτο.. [Refs 5th c.BC+]; μάλιστα μὲν δὴ.., ἔπειτα μέντοι.. [Refs 5th c.BC+] —rarely by μήν with negative, οὐδὲν μὴν κωλύει [Refs 5th c.BC+]
__A.II.6.b when the opposition is emphatic, δέ is sometimes strengthened, as ὅμως δέ.. [Refs 5th c.BC+]; δ᾽ αὖ.. [Refs 8th c.BC+]; δ᾽ ἔμπης.. [Refs 8th c.BC+]
__A.II.6.c μέν is sometimes answered by a copulative Particle, κάρτιστοι μὲν ἔσαν καὶ καρτίστοις ἐμάχοντο[Refs 8th c.BC+], etc.: rarely in Prose, τρία μὲν ἔτη ἀντεῖχον.., καὶ οὐ πρότερον ἐνέδοσαν [Refs 5th c.BC+]
__B μέν before other Particles:
__B.I where each Particle retains its force,
__B.I.1 μὲν ἄρα, in [μέν ῥα, 8th c.BC: Ilias Homerus Epicus “Illiad” 2.1, 6.312, 8th c.BC: Odyssea Homerus Epicus “Odyssey” 1.127, 5th-6th c.BC: Plato Philosophus “Phaedrus” 258d, “R.” 467d, etc. ">Refs 8th c.BC+]
__B.I.2 μὲν γάρ [Refs 8th c.BC+] there is frequently no second clause, [Refs 8th c.BC+]
__B.I.3 μέν γε, when a general statement is explained in detail, Κορινθίοις μέν γε ἔνσπονδοί ἐστε [Refs 5th c.BC+]
__B.I.4 μὲν δή [Refs 8th c.BC+]: frequently used to express positive certainty, ἀλλ᾽ οἶσθα μὲν δή [Refs 5th c.BC+]; especially as a conclusion, τοῦτο μὲν δὴ.. ὁμολογεῖται [Refs 5th c.BC+]: in closing a statement, τοιαῦτα μὲν δὴ ταῦτα [Refs 8th c.BC+]; οὐ μὲν δή, to deny positively, [Refs 8th c.BC+]; ἀλλ᾽ οὔ τι μὲν δή.. [Refs 5th c.BC+]
__B.I.5 μὲν οὖν, see below 11.2.
__B.II where the Particles combine so as to form a new sense,
__B.II.1 μέν γε at all events, at any rate (not in Trag.), τοῦτο μέν γ᾽ ἤδη σαφές [μέν γέ που 5th-6th c.BC: Plato Philosophus “Respublica” 559b, “Tht.” 147a. ">Refs 5th c.BC+]
__B.II.2 μὲν οὖν is frequently used with a corresponding δέ, so that each Particle retains its force, [Refs 8th c.BC+]: but frequently also absolutely, so then, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; especially in replies, sometimes in strong affirmation, παντάπασι μὲν οὖν [Refs 5th c.BC+]; also to substitute a new statement so as to correct a preceding statement, nay rather, κακοδαίμω; Answ. βαρυδαίμων μὲν οὖν! [Refs 5th c.BC+]; μου πρὸς τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποψῶ wipe your nose on my head: Answ. ἐμοῦ μὲν οὖν.. nay on mine, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; compare οὐμενοῦν: in “NT” μενοῦν and μενοῦνγε", to begin a sentence, yea rather, [μέν νυν is used for μὲν οὖν, 5th c.BC: Herodotus Historicus 1.18, 4.145, etc. ">NT+5th c.BC+]
__B.II.3 by μέν τε, if δέ τε follows, the two clauses are more closely combined than by τε.., τε.., [μέν τε is frequently answered by δέ alone, 16.28, +others">Refs 8th c.BC+]; by ἀλλά, αὐτάρ,[Refs 8th c.BC+]; perhaps by ἠδέ, [μέν τε">Refs 8th c.BC+] absolutely, when τε loses its force, as after ἦ, τίς, etc., [Refs 8th c.BC+]
__B.II.4 μέν τοι in [Refs 8th c.BC+] always occurs in speeches, where τοι can be regarded as the dative of the pronoun: later, μέντοι is written as a single word, and is used:
__B.II.4.a with a conjunctive force, yet, nevertheless, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; and sometimes stands for δέ, answering to μέν, see above [Refs 4th c.BC+]
__B.II.4.b as an adverb, in strong protestations, οὐ μέντοι μὰ Δία[Refs 4th c.BC+]; in eager or positive assent, of course, φαμέν τι εἶναι..; Answ. φαμὲν μέντοι νὴ Δία [μέντοι.. ">Refs 5th c.BC+]; why, are you not.. ? [μέντοι, τίνα θεῶ; [prev. author] “Phdr.” 236d ">Refs]; τί μ. πρῶτον ἦν, τί πρῶτον ἦ; nay what was the first? [Refs 5th c.BC+]; σὺ μέντοι.. [Refs 2nd c.AD+] only take heed.., [μέντἂν εἴη">Refs 5th c.BC+] nay it would be absurd, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; summing up a long temporal clause, [Refs 5th c.BC+]
__B.II.4.c μέντοι γε [μέντοιγε">Refs 5th c.BC+] stands first in the sentence, μ. οὐ θέλω [Refs 1st c.AD+]; also γε μέντοι [Refs 5th c.BC+]
__B.II.4.d καὶ μ. καί is used to add a point to be noted, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; also καί.. μ., νῦν σοι καιρός ἐστιν ἐπιδείξασθαι τὴν παιδείαν, καὶ φυλάξασθαι μέντοι.. and of course to take care.., [Refs 5th c.BC+]
__B.II.4.e ἀλλὰ μέντοι well, if it comes to that, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; well, of course, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; compare μέντον.
__C for μέν after other Particles, see each Particle.
__D Position of μέν. Like δέ, it usually stands as the second word in a sentence. But when a sentence begins with words common to its subordinate clauses, μέν stands second in the first of these clauses, as ἥδε γὰρ γυνὴ δούλη μέν, εἴρηκεν δ᾽ ἐλεύθερον λόγον [Refs 5th c.BC+]; οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐτάξαντο μέν.., ἡσύχαζον δέ.. [μέν, τότε μέν, ἐγὼ μέν">Refs 5th c.BC+], even when these do not stand first: sometimes however it precedes them, ὡς μὲν ἐγὼ οἶμαι [μέν τινες ἔφασαν 5th-6th c.BC: Xenophon Historicus “Institutio Cyri (Cyropaedia)” 5.2.28 ">Refs 5th c.BC+]. It generally stands between the Article and Noun, or the preposition and its Case: but if special stress is laid on the Noun, this is sometimes neglected, as οἱ Τεγεᾶται μὲν ἐπηυλίσαντο, Μαντινῆς δὲ ἀπεχώρησαν [Refs 5th c.BC+]; ἀνὰ τὸ σκοτεινὸν μέν.. [Refs 5th c.BC+].
__D.II μέν is frequently repeated:
__D.II.1 when, besides the opposition of two main clauses, a subordinate opposition is introduced into the first, ὁ μὲν ἀνὴρ τοιαῦτα μὲν πεποίηκε τοιαῦτα δὲ λέγει, ὑμῶν δέ.. [Refs 5th c.BC+]
__D.II.2 in apodosi with the demonstrative pronoun or adverb, τὸν μὲν καλέουσι θέρος, τοῦτον μὲν προσκυνέουσι, τὸν δὲ χειμῶνα[μέν [νυν].. αἶγας θύουσι· ὅσοι δὲ.. νομοῦ τοῦ Μενδησίου εἰσί, οὗτοι δὲ.. ὄϊς θύουσι [prev. work] 42, compare 3.108, +others">Refs 5th c.BC+]; ὅτε μέν με οἱ ἄρχοντες ἔταττον.., τότε μὲν ἔμενον.., τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τάττοντος,.. ἐνταῦθα δέ.. [Refs 5th c.BC+]
__D.II.3 μέν used absolutely is frequently followed by a correlative μέν, εἰ μὲν οὖν ἡμεῖς μὲν.. ποιοῦμεν [Refs]
__D.III μέν is sometimes omitted (especially in Poetry) where it is implied in the following δέ, φεύγων, ὁ δ᾽ ὄπισθε διώκων [Refs 8th c.BC+]

_{LSJ Scripture Refs: Luke.11.28 ☩ Rom.9.20}