yalla

I do not wish to derail Newton's Cat's OP and [whatever] point he wishes to discuss but there are several manuscripts, apparently, that do not contain references to Rome etc and manuscripts that omit the doxology at 16.25-27 altogether and some place it elsewhere in the general text.
A few even have it twice, after 14.24 and 16.24.
Tertullian nowhwere quotes Chs 16 and 16 and states that 14.10 comes in the concluding section of the epistle thus implying that Chs.15 and 16 did not, in his copy anyway, exist.

There are other anomalies that indicate various versions of the epistle existed.
Who knows what was original?

aa5874

So, the phrase "undisputed Pauline Epistles" can be disputed.

It is very interesting to note that a LETTER supposedly to the "Romans" did NOT mention the "Romans" in some versions.