In classical Greek the combination μὲν οὖν is used both
connectively, as a particle of transition, and adverbially, chiefly in answers
in dialogue. It is never the first word in the sentence. In the New Testament,
connective μὲν οὖν remains in its classical form, but adverbial μὲν οὖν in
answers has undergone two changes: the two particles are now written as one
word, μενοῦν, and it has moved to the beginning of the sentence. There are
three examples: ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν TH λέγειν αὐτὸν ταῦτα ἐπάρασά τις φωνὴν γυνὴ ἐκ
τοῦ ὄχλου εἶπεν αὐτῷ - μακαρία ἣ κοιλία ἣ βαστάσασά σε καὶ μαστοὶ οὗς ἐθήλασας.
αὐτὸς δὲ εἶπεν: μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσ-
σοντες (Lk. xi 27-28), τί ἔτι μέμφεται; τῷ γὰρ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ τίς ἀνθέστηχεν; ὦ
ἄνθρωπε, μενοῦν γε σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ θεῷ; (Rom. ix 19-20), and ἀλλὰ
λέγω, μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν; μενοῦν ye: εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐξῆλθεν ὁ φθόγγος αὐτῶν
(Rom. x 18). (In Rom. ix 20 the initial vocative may be left out of account
when considering the position of μενοῦν in the sentence. μενοῦν ye modifies the
following words, and is unrelated to the preceding ὦ ἄνθρωπε). In the Pauline
examples a third change from the classical idiom has occurred, and μενοῦν is
further emphasized by γε.
Despite the alteration in position, in two out of the
three instances, at any rate, the meaning οἱ μενοῦν remains that of the
classical idiom. In the second example from Romans it plainly expresses
contradiction, as in the following quotation from Plato, given by Denniston! to
illustrate the use of οὖν to emphasize adversative μέν: ἣ σὺ οὐδὲν ἡγεῖ
πράττειν τὸν γραμματιστήν... .; — ἔγωγε ἡγοῦμαι μὲν οὖν, ἔφη (Pl. Chrm. 161 D).
The meaning of the Lucan example is less easy to
determine, as the precise significance of the saying is not very clear from the
context, and all three classical functions of adverbial μὲν οὖν could be
attributed to the particle here without any great difficulty. It might be
strictly adversative, as in Romans: ‘‘On the contrary, this parental
relationship is not in itself of any importance whatsoever. The people who are
blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”’ Or it might be
assentient in the full sense: “Yes, certainly my mother is blessed, for the
people who are blessed are those...” (cf. 138). Finally, it might be
corrective: ““What you have said is true as far as it goes. But the blessedness
of Mary does not consist simply in the fact of her relationship towards myself
but in the fact that she shares in the blessedness of those who hear the word
of God and keep it, and it is in this that true blessedness lies.” The first
two possibilities can perhaps be eliminated, however, on the grounds that when
Luke wishes to express contradiction he uses elsewhere the phrase οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν
(ἀλλ᾽ ἢ), as in ΧΙ] 51; ΧΙ] 3, 5; and when he expresses affirmation he tends to
use the particle vat, as in vii 26; x 21; xi 51; xii 5. This leaves us with
μενοῦν as a corrective, ‘‘rather,” as in Plato, e.g. εἰς σμικρόν γ᾽, ἔφη,
χρόνον εἴρηκας; εἰς οὐδὲν μὲν οὖν, ἔφην, ὥς γε πρὸς τὸν ἅπαντα (Pl. Rk. 498
10).
The other New Testament example does not seem to fit very
happily into any of the three classical categories. Although the relation
between question and answer in Rom. ix Ig-20 is in a sense sharply adversative,
the answer is not the sort of straightforward negation which is normally the
context of adversative μὲν οὖν in classical literature. It would perhaps be
easier to regard μενοῦν ye here as simply emphatic in a completely general
sense, as in Phil. iii 8, and as modifying the following σύ. This perhaps
constitutes a further post-classical development of adverbial μὲν οὖν, but it
may, on the other hand, be peculiar to Paw:.
The alteration in the position of adverbial μὲν οὖν is
directly attested only by the examples already quoted from the New Testament.
But there are several considerations which suggest that the usage of the New
Testament may be in this respect genuinely representative of the idiom of the
κοινή. The use in question is independently attested by two different writers.
Also, there is no possibility that they derived the idiom from the Septuagint.
Thirdly, the initial position of μὲν οὖν in the sentence is condemned by
Phrynichus: μὲν οὖν τοῦτο πράξω: τίς ἀνάσχοιτο οὕτω συντάττοντός τινος ἐν ἀρχὴ
λόγου τὸ μὲν οὖν; οἱ γὰρ δόκιμοι ὑποτάσσουσιν, ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν λέγοντες, τὰ καλὰ μὲν
οὖν καὶ τὰ μὲν οὖν πράγματα (Ecl. CCCXxil). This is sufficient to show that the
initial position was to some extent generally current in the common speech.
(Margaret E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and
Exegetical Studies [New Testament Tools and Studies 3; Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1962], 34-36)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
