It seems you edited your first comment a half hour after I responded, it's easier to follow when I don't have to look back to see what's changed in your post.
There are no ancient manuscripts that have a "period" after κατὰ σάρκα, the period is a later innovation of punctuation so the statement here is anachronistic. I've examined more than hundred manuscripts containing Romans 9:5, both uncials and minuscules, and the punctuation when present is overwhelmingly a middot, which roughly corresponds to a colon or a comma and if you regard its usage in light of the manuscripts you'll find it only reliably indicates that a pause is taken up for a breath. I could provide that list of manuscripts if you wish.
For example, the punctuation in B is not by the original scribe, the original has no punctuation. If the dot in L represents a period as Abbot et al note, why then is there a comma after θεὸς? 0151 has a middot (not a high dot) and a space, but that's because it is a commentary manuscript and the scribe customarily adds a new line before the start of the commentary and he uses a colon to signify the end of a sentence after ἀμήν. 0142 also has a middot and this is all the more clear when there is a high dot after ἀμήν. No interpunct is present in Sinaiticus (Aleph), F, K, 0285 (6th century), 0319. Uncials A, B, C, L, Ψ, 040 (high dot after "amen"), 049, 056 (high dot after "amen") have a middot; Codex G has a middot after both "over all" and "God," a reading also found in later minuscules. 623 and 2110, though classed as minuscules, have an uncial text and both contain a middot.
According to Dionysius the Thracian, "There are three dots: final, middle, underdot. And the final dot is a sign for a complete thought, while the middle is a sign taken up for a breath, and the underdot is a sign for a thought which is not yet complete, but is still wanting." Thus as Metzger notes, "the most that can be inferred from the presence of a point in the middle position after σάρκα in a majority of the uncial manuscripts is that scribes felt that some kind of pause was appropriate at this juncture in the sentence." (p. 99).
So where are all "the ancient manuscripts which do have a period"?
I didn't mean an English full stop but a break or or other mark indicating a break in the text. I re-quote an article I cited earlier:
"The fact is that of the four most ancient uncials-Aleph, A, B, C-the latter three ·
have the stop, leaving the following words to be read as a separate
sentence. A is in the British Museum, where it is easily to be seen.
It will be found that the Manuscript has not only a stop, but a small
space to make room for it, both space and stop evidently a
prima
manu. B (Vaticanus) I have twice had the opportunity of inspect-
ing, having obtained access to the Manuscript mainly for the purpose
of looking at this passage. There is a stop, but no space. This has
never been noted, so far as I am aware, in the critical editions, nor
is the point given in the facsimile edition of Vercellone and Cozza.
But the stop is there, nevertheless, exactly the same in appearance as
that found after the word aμfiv at the end of the Verse. Whether it
is from the first hand or not, I do not venture to say. In C (in the
Bibliot/1eque Nationale, at Paris) there is a space w:th the little cross
which frequently stands foe a stop i1t that Manuscript. In the same
library there is another Manuscript, D, of Paul's Epistles (Claro-
montanus), of the sixth century. In this there is a space after σάρκα,
that is to say, the stichometrical line terminates with this word, as
though the writer intended the succeeding words to be separately
taken-in other words, virtually recognizing the stop. Of Aleph
I only know that the facsimile published by Tischendorf has no
stop; but this is scarcely conclusive against its presence, inasmuch
as it may have escaped the editor's notice, as in A and B, of which
Tischendorf expressly, but incorrectly, says that they have no stop.
Assuming, however, that Aleph is without the point, still it remains
true that three, perhaps fom: (D), of the five oldest and most
important uncial Manuscripts contain the stop. I This fact, taken
along with other evidence for the same conclusion, ought, I submit,
to be regarded as settling the question of punctuation. The division
(and rendering) of the Verse given by Professor Jowett in his
"Epistles of St. Paul " is, therefore, correct. And he, I need
searcely add, has here but followed the example of the most eminent
. modern authorities, including Winer, Meyer, Lachmann, Davidson,
Tischendorf, and many more.
.
.
G. VANCE SMITH.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/expositor/series1/09_397.pdf
A high dot is the puncutation in the uncials that typically (though by no means reliably) marks the end of a completed thought. However, after the 7th century the distinction between a high dot and a middle dot begins to change, with a lessening of the force of the high dot in general to reflect a medium pause (as we find in L, a 9th century uncial mentioned above). The middot was later replaced by a comma in Greek, and that is also found in many minuscules. The situation is not as simplistic as is commonly noted, because the age of the manuscript has a lot to do with how it was punctuated due to the evolving nature.
I'm not aware of what your level of knowledge is in the Greek language, perhaps you could inform me on this, but the article directly before a participle means it's an attributive participle.
Personally I do not have extensive knowledge - I tend to rely on grammars and learned grammarians. The article with a participle may also give a participle a noun quality, but I won't disagree with you on its attributive effect.
It either has an antecedent and functions like a relative clause or it is substantival and the subject is implied.
If the participle is attributive (here conjoined with ἐπὶ πάντων), then there is nothing to stop the article in Rom 9:5 from being linked to Θεὸς, because attributives / attributive clauses can come before the noun, and also after the noun - the noun in this case being Θεὸς.
That's the rule in general and you'll find it that way in your advanced grammars. I didn't craft this rule and I'm stating it simply because that rule is followed with all participles in the New Testament, and it is a simple rule. You can go and look at all the examples provided by The Real John Milton and you'll find even the present example always falls under those two classes, and I noted the exception of Revelation where it seems to be employed in places as an indeclinable noun.
I don't dissent. I also read "The participle can refer to a specific person or persons doing the action or to the whole class of people who perform this action."
Here is it obviously a specific person. The question is "who is that person?"
This is incorrect. The attributive participle in Greek has roughly the same function as a relative clause in English. This is not arbitrary.
The issue I have is that the attributive participle does not "always" function as a relative clause. John 3:31 is case in point.
ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς γῆς = the one being (who is) from the earth.
is no different in grammatical form from
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων = the one being (who is) above all
These two phrases complement each other: they stand is direct antithesis to each other.
Moreover ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is naturally associated with Θεὸς = God being (who is) above all
I do not grasp why this natural meaning cannot be imputed in Rom 9:5. Obviously many others have throughout history taken this view also, including learned grammarians.
Moreover why is Christ in the flesh being imputed as God in Rom 9:5, when he had previously been described as the "son of God" in Rom 1:3. This is an insurmountable issue, because the apostles, unlike today's modern Trinitarians, did not interminably confound God with the Son of God in their doctrinal teachings.
The legacy of the OT is another matter: carry overs from the perpetual qere (YHWH->Kyrios) and the usage of Elohim to refer to men and well as God have to be taken into account. The way I read it is that whereas a few men to whom the word of God came (John 10:34,35) used to be called Elohim in the OT, they are called Son(s) of God in the NT. This new mode of speech became fixed in the NT, largely as the result of the teaching of Christ himself, such that Christ is never referred to as "o theos" in the NT, which is reserved for the Father, and for the Father in Christ (having regard to John 20:28).
Then we have Eph 4:6 to contend with, which stands in direct contradiction to the Trinitarian translation of Rom 9:5.