Don't be insulting and pretend I'm speaking of anything more than the passage of Romans 9:5, since you know my position on manuscripts from way back, and I can give you an informed answer concerning just about any significant variant in the NT text.
In this case, there's not a single variant listed in the NA28 text. This removes the only "variant" reading listed in the NA27, which is specifically noted as being "Schlichting cj," which means a conjectural (cj) emendation offered by Schlichting. There is also no variant listing in the UBS4 text, which reversed the previous conjectural emendation of the UBS3 committee that forced a doxology to the Father and was used in a small number of translations. The passage is punctuated the same in the critical texts and in the Textus Receptus. So what variant punctuation or variant are you proposing? Where's all the manuscripts with a full stop (not a middot) after "over all," etc., or supporting all these "various" readings you keep offering?
Greek punctuation among the manuscripts designates a short pause, long pause, or full stop. What we find in manuscripts such as Alexandrinus and other manuscripts is a middle dot, which corresponds with our comma, after "flesh." It is not a period. Thus you will find the middot in Stephen's 1550, and the comma in Beza's, and both signify one and the same thing.
This false claim by you is discussed now on a new thread.
And I never had any context other than Romans 9:5.