But it doesn't. As it stands in the two oldest manuscripts, there is no punctuation at all by the first hand. In a majority of later uncials and minuscules, there is a middot which is simply a pause for drawing up a breath after σάρκα. It would therefore be the grammar that would drive the interpretation of the text, and there seems no good reason why Paul would sandwich ὁ ὢν between two nominatives that agree with it in case, number, and gender and not have it point back to ὁ Χριστὸς.
You have an idiosyncratic way of interpreting the attributive participle, in that you view it like a simple adjective--
article-noun-article-adjective. You then assert that when it takes an object or is modified by a prepositional phrase, it becomes a noun phrase in apposition. So that tells me you are treating the article as nothing more than a simple substatnivizer. This is, as I've said, a very
novice approach to the subject. It is also
entirely incorrect. Cf. Mounce:
29.6 Attributive.
The attributive participle modifies a noun or pronoun in the sentence, and agrees with that word in case, number, and gender, just like an adjective. For the time being, it can be translated simply with the “-ing” form.
ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ ἐστὶν ὁ διδάσκαλός μου.
The man speaking to the crowd is my teacher.
This is the normal article-noun-article-modifier construction. In this illustration, the modifier is the participial phrase, λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ. (Mounce, William D.. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, pp. 628-629)
And Merkle and Plummer
Attributive Use
With the attributive use, the article (when present) occurs directly in front of the participle which modifies an expressed noun or pronoun. It is often best to translate an attributive participle with an English relative clause (“who” or “which/that”) . . . Participles can also take direct objects or can be modified by other parts of speech (e.g., adverbs, prepositional phrases, or negative particles). (Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Beginning with New Testament Greek, p. 186, 187).
This is
not what you are asserting. It is in fact the
opposite of what you are asserting. Note that I've regressed from quoting even Intermediate grammars to you and have to resort now to
basic grammars to get the point across. To me that's not a good sign. Both of these statements support what I've been saying to you (as did all the intermediates and beyond), and your approach entirely contradicts them
all. And when your statements are controverted, you simply assert the same things over and over again and offer more
proof by assertion.
Your approach is then not only incorrect, but also circular: you say ὁ ὢν has to be a substantive because it is modified by a prepositional phrase, and therefore all the instances where it refers back to a head noun must therefore be independent and it should be taken in apposition. Let me be clear once again
that this is not how the attributive participle works. You wouldn't even acknowledge the examples of such attributive participles found over the scope of four or five grammars, so it's a waste of time to even try to have this discussion with you. When the nominal head of the attributive participle is expressed in the sentence, it is
dependent, not
independent.
As for how good my Greek is here, the New Testament usage actually supports what I'm saying, as do the Greek fathers and the ancient versions. They don't support yours.