Nonsense. The fact that οἶδεν intervenes between the two expressions proves that this is not an example of the second attributive position .
You'll run into the same problem in John 2:9, where a verb
also comes between the head noun and the attributive participle (
οἱ δὲ
διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ), and the participle and in that case the grammarians are clearly not on your side. Apparently you missed this:
οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ (“ who had drawn the water”) – οἱ ἠντληκότες (per act ptc masc nom pl ἀντλέω) is an attributive participle that modifies οἱ διάκονοι (cf. vv. 7– 8) and is equivalent in function to a relative clause.
Köstenberger, Andreas J.; Merkle, Benjamin L; Plummer, Robert L.. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Revised Edition, p. 189
Also, Whitacre:
οἱ δὲ διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες τὸ ὕδωρ (John 2:9) though the servants who had drawn the water knew ἠντληκότες – pf.-ptc.-act.-masc.-nom.-pl. < ἀντλέω. ἠντληκότες is in the same gender, case, and number as the noun οἱ διάκονοι (the servants), and so this participle is used as an adjective to modify this noun. Note that this participle has a direct object, τὸ ὕδωρ (the water). The participle by itself has the resultative aspect so it refers to servants “who are in a state of having drawn” the water. Since the context points to past time the participle should be translated with an appropriate form of past tense.
(Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), §5.184a)
This is just another example of Brian quote mining selected sources which support his position. Both of the above verses need not be examples of the second attributive position but easily of appositives.
Quote mining implies that I'm taking these examples out of context. I am not, and you have not demonstrated that I have, and this is just another example of you asserting something without substantiating it.
Unfortunately, you've placed yourself in a position of invincible ignorance, by which I refer to the fallacy aptly described as follows by Wikipedia:
The invincible ignorance fallacy, also known as argument by pigheadedness, is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. (underline mine, emphasis theirs).
And by that I mean you are circumventing the normal rules of the attributive participle by treating all the examples against you as independent, substantival appositions. That puts me in the position of
having to quote from the grammars and grammarians.
But beyond that neither is an example of the participle form of the to be verb εἰμί, namely ὢν; both are participle forms of action verbs , namely of ἀντλέω and of ἀναγεννάω.
This is just more special pleading--i.e., that you say the rule is ok for
action verbs, but not for ὢν. One would wonder why εἰμί has a participle form at all; under your restrictions, it would have nothing but a substantival usage. The participle ὢν, when it functions adjectivally, still retains the verbal function of its finite form, εἰμί, which means it can act as a predicator. Again, for the umpteenth time:
Even when a participle functions as an adjective or a noun it is still a verbal form, which means it has verbal aspect and it can take a direct object and various modifiers like any other verb.
Whitacre, Rodney A.. A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Eerdmans Language Resources), §5.181b.
Also relevant is Mounce (
ὁ ἄνθρωπος
ὁ λέγων τῷ ὀχλῷ ἐστὶν ὁ διδάσκαλός μου):
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 (Zondervan Language Basics Series), p. 629.