The only way to figure out what could be the correct one is to:
1. see if there's room for one or two letters if there's a missing piece of the manuscript: ΜΗ(Ν) vs ΜΗ(ΔΕ).
2. If there's not a lacuna, compare ALL the extant manuscripts and calculate where and how the are differences.
If it's the latter, Userner seems to have examined the manuscripts or at least authoritative copies.
If the former, you're right in that one's positive or negative disposition may influence seeing ΜΗΝ or ΜΗΔΕ.
Whilst reading Sider on Philodemus poetry, I came across the following –
Sider (pp. 35-36):
“as both Chilton and Grilli agree, Epicurus does allow his followers to marry, although only in exceptional circumstances. This view is in line with the several other less than absolute strictures of Epicurus listed by Diogenes, including the general prohibition against writing poetry.38
“What these exceptional circumstances are neither Epicurus nor our sources spell out, but we may imagine that much would depend on the character of the woman. Since, moreover, women were welcome into the Garden for their intellectual abilities, these fellow Epicureans would seem to be obvious candidates for wives. Since, furthermore, women were appreciated for their bodies as well as their minds, sex being regarded as a providing a natural, albeit unnecessary, pleasure, sexual passion would not be expected to stop at marriage. …
“A woman who could satisfy both body and mind would make the ideal wife.”
Use of the phrase “allow … although only …” implies that Epicurus’ authority was such that he could also forbid (disallow) his followers from marrying.
++++++++++++++++++
Now the comments in this thread, including Cassius in post #8 and Don translations, indicate that no one here would be in agreement with such authoritarian innuendoes. Nor does Hick’s “Occasionally he may marry …” imply that.
But there seems to be some such authoritarian interpretation out there in the scholarly world.
++++++++++++++++++
I looked up the Chilton article, "Did Epicurus approve of marriage? A study of Diogenes Laertius 10.119" and found it here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181668…an_tab_contents
Chilton proffers the following interpretation: “In general the wise man will not marry but sometimes depending on the circumstances of his life, he will marry” – but then argues that it must be wrong.
Chilton also discusses the question of the wise man “turning away from his purpose,” etc., discussed in this thread above from post #5.
But Chilton does not – unless I missed it – suggest that Epicurus in some authoritarian manner allowed/forbade marriage unless some approved conditions were met.
+++++++++++++++
Chilton is also cited here, “Epicurus on Sex, Marriage and Children” by Tad Brennan: https://www.jstor.org/stable/270440?…an_tab_contents
Brennan says that Epicurus “advised against marriage … but permitted it in exceptional cases.” (p. 348-349) This could be taken as a somewhat weaker position than Sider’s – but seems a bit confusing.
He also says, referring to Epicurus’ will: "These texts, then, show that Epicurus did permit and indeed encourage marriage and child-rearing-not as a rule, but for certain Epicureans, in certain circumstances. And they also indicate what sort of circumstances these were.”
He concludes on marriage: “By and large, Epicurus will advise Epicureans not to marry, but sometimes, in exceptional circumstances, he will advise certain of them to marry.” (p. 350) Advise, not allow/permit/forbid.
All in all, Brennan seems at best sloppy on his use of language.
I'll have to look those articles up!! Thanks for the references.
One thing to remember in this discussion was that, Epicurean or not, women's lives were circumscribed within the general Greek culture. Look at his Will and talking about the daughter of Metrodorus:
Let them likewise provide for the maintenance of Metrodorus's daughter,32 so long as she is well-ordered and obedient to Hermarchus; and, when she comes of age, give her in marriage to a husband selected by Hermarchus from among the members of the School ; and out of the revenues accruing to me let Amynomachus and Timocrates in consultation with Hermarchus give to them as much as they think proper for their maintenance year by year.
That said, I don't get the impression that Epicurus was forbidding marriages but I can see men (and women! in the Garden) asking his counsel and advice on who they were thinking of marrying.
the argument that he was a strong opponent or he forbid it is to me just more evidence of how hostile much of the academic world is to Epicurus
Even among scholars who, for one reason or another, carved out for themselves a niche in Epicurean scholarship. Even if sometimes it's a subconscious bias that creeps in. I hope Sider's work on the actual poems of Philodemus is better! 
Epicurean or not, women's lives were circumscribed within the general Greek culture.
Epicurus pushed the edges of such circumscription within the Garden (it seems to me) – and that’s clearly all he could do. But that “that’s all” can serve as an exemplar for when circumstances change – and the Leontion’s and Themistas of our time (and other strong women) can be celebrated.
Epicurus pushed the edges of such circumscription within the Garden (it seems to me)
Fully agree! Letting women and slaves study philosophy??!! Clutch my pearls! 
However, marriages still needed to be sanctioned by the state and the culture to be legal and to allow for inheritance and the other legal and social aspects to be legitimate.
Sexual Relationships
The wise one will not establish a sexual relationship in a way that is against the law or forbidden by custom. Epicureans generally think that the sage will never succumb to lustful desire or be overwhelmed by sexual passions. According to the school, sexual passion is not sent by any supernatural force. They say that having sex like animals never did anyone any good, and people should be content if it does no harm. Epicurus also said that the wise one will not marry nor raise a family (and talked about the pains involved with that life); however, under certain circumstances, the wise one will forsake these rules and decide to marry. (118, 119)
I'm re-visiting this.
Don do you have a copy of the original manuscript?
The error here is the original translators' rendering of the first three words of this sentence. Some render μηδὲ, which is very clearly the oppositional word "not", whereas others render μέν, which is not oppositional and may just be reinforcing the καί. This is the difference between "and will not marry" versus "and also will marry". This is a rather significant contention.
After citing this position to Epicurus' book Puzzles and On Nature, the following clause features the word δέ, which is another oppositional "but", denoting a change in direction from the last sentence. We have another future verb here ("will marry"), so that leads me to believe that the first sentence should be μηδὲ, that a wise person is "not" usually likely to marry. That seems consistent.
But then this phrase, which seems to sit by itself:
καὶ διατραπήσεσθαί τινας
There are no nominative or genitive words in this clause, so I'm assuming the subject is implied.
καὶ usually means "and" (or some other supportive conjunction)
τινας is a plural, indefinate, accusative pronoun, so it should have to be "them", right?
I'm also assuming that "them" is the recipient of the action in this sentence.
διατραπήσεσθαί is the action, and ugh ... I wish we had more examples.
So, breaking it down ... since there's only one example of it ... the root is διατρέπω, from δια- ("by, for, through") and τρέπω ("to turn, rotate, divert"). It ends in -esthai, so I assume this is the future, middle infinitive form. So, that leads me to interpret this word as "will turn away from".
Altogether, we've got "and will turn away from them."
So, regarding the pronoun "them" ... as far as I can tell, the only actual nouns that have been used so far (besides citing "Epicurus" and his books "Puzzles" and "On Nature") are "circumstances" and "of life". Otherwise, the concepts "wife", "children", and "marriage" are implied by verbs, but those nouns are not used by themselves. So the thing the wise person is turning away from ...
"and will turn away from [their family]" or "[the circumstance productive of family]."
Either way, as I'm now reading this, it seems like Epicurus was saying "Wise people don't start a family. Even if you find the right person, starting a family is still unwise."
The error here is the original translators' rendering of the first three words of this sentence. Some render μηδὲ, which is very clearly the oppositional word "not", whereas others render μέν, which is not oppositional and may just be reinforcing the καί
It's been a while since I looked into this, but here is the English text in the Yonge translation;
He said that injuries existed among men, either in consequence of hatred, or of envy, or of contempt, all which the wise man overcomes by reason. Also, that a man who has once been wise can never receive the contrary disposition, nor can he of his own accord invent such a state of things as that he should be subjected to the dominion of the passions; nor can he hinder himself in his progress towards wisdom. That the wise man, however, cannot exist in every state of body, nor in every nation. That even if the wise man were to be put to the torture, he would still be happy. That the wise man will only feel gratitude to his friends, but to them equally[467] whether they are present or absent. Nor will he groan and howl when he is put to the torture. Nor will he marry a wife whom the laws forbid, as Diogenes says, in his epitome of the Ethical Maxims of Epicurus. He will punish his servants, but also pity them, and show indulgence to any that are virtuous. They do not think that the wise man will ever be in love, nor that he will be anxious about his burial, nor that love is a passion inspired by the Gods, as Diogenes says in his twelfth book. They also assert that he will be indifferent to the study of oratory. Marriage, say they, is never any good to a man, and we must be quite content if it does no harm; and the wise man will never marry or beget children, as Epicurus himself lays it down, in his Doubts and in his treatises on Nature. Still, under certain circumstances of life, he will forsake these rules and marry. Nor will he ever indulge in drunkenness, says Epicurus, in his Banquet, nor will he entangle himself in affairs of state (as he says in his first book on Lives). Nor will he become a tyrant. Nor will he become a Cynic (as he says in his second book about Lives). Nor a beggar. And even, though he should lose his eyes, he will still partake of life (as he says in the same book).
The most common phrasing in this passage is "nor will the wise man...". The few sentences that don't start with nor instead start with 'also', 'however', or 'still', which seems to indicate that this is principally a list of what the wise man will not do, with the few exceptions marked off as such.
Some render μηδὲ, which is very clearly the oppositional word "not", whereas others render μέν, which is not oppositional and may just be reinforcing the καί. This is the difference between "and will not marry" versus "and also will marry". This is a rather significant contention.
I suspect that it won't be sufficient to examine only the sentence under consideration, where the preceding and following sentences might contribute to a proper reading of the conjunctions.
That being said, the Greeks got a whole hell of a lot of mileage out of that one word καί. It's certainly beyond my powers to parse!
Don do you have a copy of the original manuscript?
https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/user/311-don/#wall/comment484
This post on my wall has links to the available online digitized DL manuscripts.
As far as "original," that's open to definition/interpretation. We certainly don't have DL's autographs or his sources in many cases. The ones we do have are centuries removed from him; however, they're the best we have!
Regarding part of that section, here is how White (2021) translates:
"119 Moreover, the wise man will both marry and have children, as Epicurus says in Perplexities and in On Nature; he will marry at a time suited to his circumstances in life, and some will refuse to do so. However, he will not chatter away over drink, says Epicurus in the Symposium. Nor will he participate in government, as in On Lives Book 1; nor will he be a tyrant. nor will he act like a Cynic, as in On Lives Book 2; nor will he go begging. But even if his sight is impaired, he will not take his own life, as he says in the same work. also the wise man will feel sorrow, says Diogenes in Selections Book 5; and he will go to court, and he will leave behind writings, but he will not deliver ceremonial addresses."
καὶ διατραπήσεσθαί τινας
Yes I think we can ignore that period some editors add and can connect this with the preceding κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου γαμήσειν.
With Τινας as a subject-accusative which pluralizes its reference to τὸν Σοφόν and takes the infinitives γαμήσειν and διατραπήσεσθαί (taken as middle), we could have:
...and [Epíkouros says] in "On Nature" that some [wise men] will marry at some point in [their] life according to circumstance and [some] will refuse [to marry].
Pertinent section from Paris codex MSS (Gr. 1759), known as P (Publication date : 1075-1150 ). That second line here (which starts "119") looks to me certainly like:
και μην και γαμησειν και τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφόν...
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, μήν
verily, truly? for μην?
There is a δε once you get to δε ποτε βιου γαμησειν...
That said, I'll need to check the other manuscripts. Some may have μηδέ after that first και.
Thanks for these Don! So it seems these two agree and both have μήν.
I was a bit confused with the ascender in your 4734, but that does appear to be a variant ēta form.
