LiTERATLRE.— The Le.xx. g.vv. ; Alford's Gr. Te-gt. ; Westcott's Sf. John ; Bruce and Dods in EGT ; Holtzmann in JUand-Com. ; Hastings' DB, art. ' Prince ' ; Chase, CrcdihilUy of the Acti, p. 129 ff. ; Spurgeon, The Messiah, 163, 175.
J. C. Lambert. PRINT (ri'TTo?, the mark of a stroke or blow ; cf. Athen. tovs tvttovs tQiv irXrjyuiv iooiva). — In the Gospels ' print ' is found only in Jn 20^5, where in most MSS it occurs twice : ' Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I -will not believe ' (for other uses of ri>iros in XT see Grimm-Thayer and Cremer, s.v.).
At the second occurrence of the word a r.l. t^t5» is lound in AI, which Lach., Tisch., and Treg. [marjr.] read (K has £.? ret x'^/x^' (iic) aiToZ). There is considerable variety in the Lat. VSS ; Cod. Brixianus (OL) gives ' nisi videro in manibus ejus locum clavorum et mittam digitum meuni in foramina clavorum ' ; others read ' figuram' (so D lat. in both places;, which occurs in Vulg. for Ti^fo- in Ac 7-*3, 1 Co 10 -li; and 'fissurani' is also found. Vulg. gives ' nisi \idero in manibus fixuram clavorum, et mittam digitum meum in locum clavorum.' 'Fixuram' seems to be a correction made by Jerome, since it is not found in the older codices ; but it naiay mean the place where the nail was fixed. Augustine preferred the word ' cicatrix,' in one place (on 1 Jn l"i quoting Thomas' words as ' non credam nisi digitos meos misero in locum clavorum, et cicatrices ejus teti- gero' ; in another (on Ps 21 (22)17), • nisi misero digitos meos in cicatrices %Tilnerum, non credam.' See f\ill note in Wordsworth- White's ST Lat. (Oxford). The reading tstsj would bring out more strongly what is implied in the storv% that Thomas required the evidence of his senses, both of seeing and feeUng ; he wished to see the tvtm, and put his finger into the tct»? ; cf. Grotius, 'tvt« videtur, n-ro; impletur.' Westcott, however, holds that this reading is nothing more than an early and natural mistake ; and Godet says that it takes away from the denial of the disciple precisely its marked character of obstinacy, which is shown in the dehberate repetition of his phrases.
When Jesus appeared on the evening of the Resurrection to His disciples during the absence of Thomas, it is related that He showed them His hands and His feet, e\-idently bearing the marks of the wounds, in order to convince them of the reality and identity of His risen body (Lk 24^, cf. Jn 2(F'j. He also offered them the testimony of their sense of feeling, ' Handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me haA-ing.' Thomas refused to accept their account of what had taken place, and required that he him- self should have proof similar to or even stronger than what they had received. The wounds inflicted upon Calvary were deeply engraven on his memory, and to all their repeated assurances (eXe^/oi-, Jn2tJ=®) he had but one answer (elwev). ' Si Pharisaeus ita dixisset nH Impetrasset, sed discipnlo pridem pro- bate nil non datur' (Bengel). A week later Cniist appeared again to the disciples, Thomas being present, and offered him just the test he had de- manded, giving him back Ms own words, but making no mention of the prints of the nails, for 'He does not recall the malice of His enemies' (Alford). It is a moot question whether Thomas availed himself of this otter. Tertulllan, Ambrose, Cyril, and others suppose that he did, but it is psychologically more probable that Thomas rose alx)ve such a material test ; the presence of his Master, and the proof of His omniscience, shown In His knowledge of what Thomas had said on the former occasion, were sufficient ; Avith a bound he rose to tlie \T.slon of highest faith (so Meyer, Alford, Westcott, Edersheim, Dods, etal.). With this, too, agree the words of the Lord, ' Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed,' ndt ' because thou hast touched me.'
If It be asked, how the prints of the wounds could be seen, and even remain open, in His risen and glorified body, it is but one of many difiiculties arising from our ignorance as to the nature of that body. On the same occasion Christ entered the room with this same body In which the prints were visible, the doors being shut. Since, therefore, the account deals ynXh matters of which we have no experience, we must accept the fact on sufficient evidence, even though we may not be able to account for it. Meanwhile there is deep significance In the fact that the marks of these wounds remain. They prove the reality of the Resurrection body, and its contmtilty with that body which was crucified ; though Christ glorified was In many respects change<l, yet He was essenti- ally the same Avho sufiered, seeing that the prints could become visibly present to Thomas and the others. They show also the abiding nature of His atoning work, and teach us to connect the Issue of His Agony with His Work in triumph (cf. the use of the perfect tense, 'Itjo-oi-v -bv ea-Tavpwfievov, in Mt