Thanks for the explanation. I’ve found that Pali often tends to make mistakes like this. For example, the rishes of the past are referred to be their more familiar patrymomics (eg. Vāseṭṭha) rather than the personal name.
This is all fantastic information, and I will be digesting it as best I can. I am trying to locate the Buddhist texts more specifically in their context, but as a mere dilettante of Brahmanism, I can only make some guesses. I would love to have some help!
Sure. But there is nothing unlikely about naming a sutta after the monk to whom the sutta is directed. No sutta is named after the Buddha’s personal name, and there is precisely nothing to suggest that this is any different.
The Sutta Nipata is not early, this is an oft-repeated misconception. Parts are early, parts are late. This particular sutta has no parallels, and the content strikes me as being somewhat late. The strident tone to get rid of bad monks reminds me of the rigorists of the second council; the Buddha was usually more balanced.
See discussion here. The Sakyans are referred to as Gotamas, the Mallas as Vasetthas, and others as Aggivessanas.
Ok, thanks. 