John 20:25

body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em auto; max-width: 800px; padding: 0 1em; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 2em; }
h3 { margin-top: 1.5em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 0; padding-left: 1em; color: #555; font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 2em; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }

An Exegetical Study of John 20:25: Text-Critical and Grammatical Considerations of τύπος and οὐ μή Constructions

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Study of John 20:25: Text-Critical and Grammatical Considerations of τύπος and οὐ μή Constructions is based on a b-greek discussion from May 3, 2006. The initial query focused on the grammatical significance of the singular noun τύπος (“print”) in the phrase τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων (“the print of the nails”) compared to a potential plural form, noting that the second-century manuscript P⁶⁶ indeed reads τοὺς τύπους (“the prints”).

The discussion revolves around two primary grammatical and text-critical issues in John 20:25: (1) the textual variance between the singular τύπον and plural τύπους concerning the “print(s) of the nails,” and its implications for meaning and the narrative portrayal of Thomas’s skepticism; and (2) the precise grammatical and semantic force of the strong negation οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω, particularly concerning whether πιστεύσω functions as an aorist subjunctive or a future indicative, and how this relates to broader trends in Hellenistic Greek usage.

Greek text (Nestle 1904, represented by NA28):

Ἐὰν μὴ ἴδω ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων, καὶ βάλω τὸν δάκτυλόν μου εἰς τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων, καὶ βάλω τὴν χεῖρά μου εἰς τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• The primary text of John 20:25 in critical editions like Nestle-Aland (representing Nestle 1904’s lineage) and the SBLGNT (2010) are identical. Both read τὸν τύπον (singular) and οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω.
• However, the original discussion correctly highlights a significant textual variant: Papyrus 66 (P⁶⁶), an early and important manuscript, reads τοὺς τύπους (plural) instead of τὸν τύπον in the clause “put my finger into the print of the nails.” This is a textual variant considered in critical apparatuses, though not adopted into the main text of NA28 or SBLGNT.

Textual criticism (NA28) and lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

Textual Criticism: The primary textual issue in John 20:25 concerns the form of τύπος. The vast majority of manuscripts, including major uncials (e.g., א, B, D, L, W, Θ) and the Byzantine tradition, support the singular reading τὸν τύπον (“the print”). However, P⁶⁶, an early and significant papyrus, along with a few minuscules (e.g., 579, 700), attests to the plural reading τοὺς τύπους (“the prints”). Critical editions like NA28 and SBLGNT adopt the singular reading, considering it the more likely original. The argument for the singular often rests on the principle of the “harder reading” (lectio difficilior potior): scribes might have been more prone to “correct” a singular “print” to a plural “prints” given the plural “nails,” making the singular more likely to be original. From a theological perspective, the singular τύπος might emphasize the distinctive mark or characteristic impression of the crucifixion, rather than a mere enumeration of individual wounds.

Lexical Notes:

• τύπος (typos): According to BDAG (3rd ed., p. 1022), τύπος carries several meanings, including: (1) a mark, impression, or print, as in John 20:25, τύπον τῶν ἥλων; (2) a pattern, model, or example; (3) a form or character. In John 20:25, its primary meaning is “impression” or “print,” referring to the physical indentation left by the nails. The choice between singular and plural affects whether Thomas is looking for a single, characteristic mark or multiple distinct impressions.
• οὐ μή (ou mē): This is a strong negative particle construction used to express an emphatic future denial. BDAG (p. 696) describes it as denoting “emphatic negation or prohibition.” Kittel (TDNT, Vol. IV, p. 770) emphasizes its absolute and decisive nature. When used with the aorist subjunctive (as πιστεύσω is often interpreted here), it often denotes a categorical refusal that is sometimes stronger than with the future indicative. However, in Koine Greek, the morphological distinction between first-person singular aorist subjunctive and future indicative can blur, making context and the emphatic nature of the οὐ μή construction paramount.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

Analysis of τύπος (singular) vs. τύπους (plural):

Grammatically, both singular and plural forms of τύπος are plausible with the genitive plural τῶν ἥλων (“of the nails”). The singular τύπον suggests Thomas is seeking *the* specific, characteristic mark or overall impression left by the nails, perhaps seeing the crucifixion wounds as a singular, identifiable sign of identity. This focuses on the qualitative aspect of the mark. Rhetorically, this makes Thomas’s demand very specific and iconic; he wants to confirm the unique mark of Christ’s suffering. If the plural τοὺς τύπους were adopted (as in P⁶⁶), it would imply a demand to see multiple distinct indentations, emphasizing the quantity of the wounds or individual nail marks. This would shift the focus from a singular identifying mark to the individual injuries, possibly making the demand more concrete but less symbolic.

Analysis of οὐ μὴ πιστεύσω (strong negation):

The construction οὐ μή with the verb πιστεύσω presents a common challenge in Hellenistic Greek grammar: distinguishing between a 1st singular aorist subjunctive and a 1st singular future indicative, as both share the same ending (-ω). In classical Greek, οὐ μή followed by an aorist subjunctive generally expressed an emphatic future denial or prohibition (e.g., “I shall certainly not do it”), while with the future indicative, it also conveyed emphatic future denial, though sometimes with a slightly less categorical force. In Koine Greek, this distinction often became less rigid, and the forms could be used interchangeably or merged. Regardless of the precise mood, the rhetorical effect of οὐ μή is paramount: it conveys an absolute, unequivocal, and emphatic refusal to believe. Thomas is not merely stating a negative fact (“I will not believe”), but expressing a profound and resolute determination (“I will *never* believe,” or “I will *under no circumstances* believe”). This highlights the depth of his skepticism and the extraordinary nature of the proof he requires.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegetical analysis of John 20:25 reveals the subtle but significant interplay of textual criticism and grammatical nuance in shaping our understanding of Thomas’s demanding declaration. The choice between singular τύπος and plural τύπους, though text-critically resolved in favor of the singular in most modern editions, impacts how we envision the physical evidence Thomas required. Similarly, the robust negation οὐ μή πιστεύσω underscores the absolute nature of his disbelief, irrespective of the fine grammatical distinction between aorist subjunctive and future indicative in Koine Greek.

Based on this analysis, the following translation suggestions capture varying facets of the text:

1. “Unless I see in his hands the mark left by the nails, and put my finger into the mark left by the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will in no way believe.” This translation adheres to the singular τύπος of the critical text, emphasizing a singular characteristic “mark” or “impression” rather than individual prints, and conveys the absolute nature of the negation.
2. “If I do not see the print of the nails in his hands, and place my finger into the print of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will absolutely not believe.” This rendering focuses on τύπος as a singular ‘print’ and strengthens the emphatic denial, suggesting a complete and utter refusal to believe.
3. “Unless I see in his hands the nail-prints, and put my finger into the nail-prints, and put my hand into his side, I shall never believe.” This translation reflects the textual variant found in P⁶⁶, reading τύπους (plural), and stresses the emphatic, future-oriented negation, allowing for an interpretation where Thomas demanded to see each individual impression.

“`