We have a situation where we recorded tracks at 48khz. However, the final mix will be printed through an analog console. Is there any benefit - and if so, how much - to printing the mix through the console in 96khz instead of 48khz?
The relevant question is what you're going to do with the mix yet. Distributing a final master at more than 48 kHz makes no sense whatsoever. The only reason it can be useful to record at higher rates is to avoid aliasing issues in any nonlinear effects plugins.
That certainly includes mastering compressors, so if your plan is to feed the digital mix to some such final stage then I would say it is indeed a good idea to sample your analogue mixer's output at 96 kHz, do the mastering on that file, and downsample to 44.1 / 48 kHz for consumer distribution. Since it's only stereo, neither hard-drive space nor CPU power should be an issue, so no matter how little aliasing if you can avoid it it's worth the effort.
Realistically, there will probably be no significant difference unless the mastering includes rather excessive limiting / soft-clipping. If you don't do any digital processing of the mix at all, you might as well record straight to the final target sample rate (note that your ADC will in this case do the equivalent downsampling).
Not really, the only benefit from resampling again at 96 on the analog output is that the output of any time-based effects (delay, reverb, chorus, etc) will be sampled at the higher quality. If you're simply adjusting levels in your mix, you'll receive no benefit. You would be able to capture slightly more data resolution by increasing the bit-depth, however. then you're capturing the minute analog amplitude changes.
No. It would be a different story if you were changing bit depth (16 to 24), but you won't get any benefit by increasing the sample rate in this situation.