Source: discord
A cursory reading of the texts is giving me a very clear indication that they are a mixture of Rigvedic verses with some pseudo-Vedic verses (where the authors try to imitate the Vedic language with partial success) and somewhere no attempt seems to have been made at all to make them look like Vedic, with childish errors of the sort we see in Puranic literature written in the Islamic period (though I am not yet confident enough to claim that late period of their composition or compilation). Here is a sample:
RvKh_2,12.2a: uraś.ca.pṛṣṭhaś.ca.karau.ca.bāhū.jaṃghe.ca.ūrū.udaram.śiraś.ca./
RvKh_2,12.2b: romāṇi.māṃsam.rudhira.asthi.majjam.etat.śarīram.jala.budbuda.upamam./
RvKh_2,12.3a: bhruvau.lalāṭe.ca.tathā.ca.karṇau.hanū.kapolau.chubukas.tathā.ca./
RvKh_2,12.3b: oṣṭhau.ca.dantāś.ca.tathaiva.jihvā.me.tat.śarīram.mukha.ratna.kośam.//
The last line, specially with “me” in the wrong place (though see the comment below). The “me” is perhaps due to a scribal error. “jihvā, etat” seems to be the correct reading.
However, the composition clearly demonstrates lack of understanding of the Vedic language, through such meaningless insertions of Rigvedic verses:
RvKh_2,12.1a: cakṣuś.ca.śrotram.ca.manaś.ca.vāk.ca.prāṇa.apāṇau.deha.idam.śarīram./
RvKh_2,12.1b: dvau.pratyañcāv.anulomau.visargāv.edan.tam.manye.daśa.yantram.utsam./
RvKh_2,12.1c: ya.ānayat.parāvataḥ.//15.
The dáśayantram útsam is completely out of context here. In the original Rigvedic verses, it refers to the pressing of Soma by the ten fingers. And then it is followed by a pointless य आन॑यत्परा॒वतः॑।
Also, the meaning of asura:
RvKh_2,4.1a: svastyayanam.tārkṣyam.ariṣṭanemim.mahad.bhūtam.vāyasam.devatānām./ RvKh_2,4.1b: asuraghnam.indra.sakham.samatsu.bṛhad.yaśo.nāvam.iva.āruhema./
The following ones are really very very late. My comments in italic.
RvKh_2,1.1a: mā.bibher.na.mariṣyasi.pari.tvā.pāmi.sarvataḥ./ RvKh_2,1.1b: ghanena.hanmi.vṛścikam.ahim.daṇḍena.āgatam./ A Puranic hiatus
RvKh_2,1.1c: tvam.agne.dyubhis.tvam.āśuśukṣaṇiḥ.//1.(.p.69.). Out-of-context insertion from the Rigveda
RvKh_2,1.2a: āditya.ratha.vegena.viṣṇor.bāhu.balena.ca./ RvKh_2,1.2b: garuḍa.pakṣa.nipātena.bhūmim.gaccha.mahā.yaśāḥ./
विस्तारः (द्रष्टुं नोद्यम्)
An extra ‘a’: not of the occasional kind found in Rigveda, but one resulting from a forceful schwa deletion, often found in very late, faulty Puranic verses, grantha-mahimā-varṇana, dāna-mahatvam etc.
RvKh_2,1.3a: garuḍasya.jāta.mātreṇa.trayo.lokāḥ.prakampitāḥ./ Similar to above
RvKh_2,1.3b: prakampitā.mahī.sarvā.saśaila.vana.kānanā./ Epic
RvKh_2,1.4a: gaganam.naṣṭa.candra.arkam.jyotiṣam.na.prakāśate./ Epic, jyotiṣam?? lol
RvKh_2,1.4b: devatā.bhaya.bhītāś.ca.māruto.na.plavāyati.māruto.na.plavāyaty.om.namaḥ./
विस्तारः (द्रष्टुं नोद्यम्)
Funny form, the only other occurrence of which is in the rātrisūkta, in khila literature itself; one of them is perhaps inspired by the other.
RvKh_2,1.5a: bho.sarpa.bhadra.bhadram.te.dūram.gaccha.mahā.yaśāḥ./
RvKh_2,1.5b: janamejayasya.yajña.ante.āstīka.vacanam.smara./ Extra ‘a’ RvKh_2,1.6a: āstīka.vacanam.śrutvā.yaḥ.sarpo.na.nivartate./
RvKh_2,1.6b: śatadhā.bhidyate.mūrdhni.śiṃśa.vṛkṣa.phalam.yathā./
Also, the tree is called śiṃśapā, not śiṃśa everywhere in Sanskrit literature, whatever the metre demands. Such a sloppy use of language.
RvKh_2,1.7a: agastyo.mādhavaś.caiva.mucukundo.(.mucukuṃdo.).mahā.muniḥ./
RvKh_2,1.7b: kapilo.munir.āstīkaḥ.pañca.ete.sukha.śāyinaḥ./
RvKh_2,1.8a: narmadāyai.namaḥ.prātar.narmadāyai.namo.niśi./ RvKh_2,1.8b: namo.astu.narmade.tubhyam.trāhi.mām.viṣa.sarpataḥ./
विस्तारः (द्रष्टुं नोद्यम्)
Epic (or rather Puranic, because the verses in Mahabhārata where she is described themselves are of snāna-tīrtha-mahimā type
RvKh_2,1.9a: yo.jaratkāruṇā.jāto.jarat.kanyām.mahā.yaśāḥ./
विस्तारः (द्रष्टुं नोद्यम्)
Apart from here, I could find jaratkanyā only in padmapurāṇa, skandapurāṇa and bhaviṣyapurāṇa.
And, the expression “yo.jaratkāruṇā.jāto.jarat.kanyām.mahā.yaśāḥ.” where jarakanyā is in accusative (द्वितीया विभक्ति, rather than locative, सप्तमी) sounds like a bad translation (for the sake of metre) of Hindi (or Prakrit of that time) of something like “जरत्कन्या को एक सर्प हुआ”.
RvKh_2,1.9b: tasya.sarpo.api.bhadram.te.dūram.gaccha.mahā.yaśāḥ./
RvKh_2,1.9c: tasya.sarpasya.sarpatvam.tasmai.sarpa.namo.astu.te.|
The namaḥ prātar namo niśi formula occurs only for Narmadā and only in Puraṇa-s (other than here).
The trāhi mām ….ataḥ formula is only seen in Purāṇā-s (skipping the epics entirely).
So many things in common with late Purāṇa language show that these are themselves very late (surely one cannot expect that all the similar forms and usages won’t be found in any text between two different texts separated by millennia).
Whence @Dhvasra gave the only attestation of Naraka in the Veda:
duhkhitāṃś.ca.dvijāṃś.caiva.prajām.ca.paśu.pālaya./
And:
pareṣām.upakāra.artham.yo.jīvati.sa.jīvati./
This yo jīvati sa jīvati is found only in skandapurāṇa and mahāsubhāṣitasangraha; paraparopakārārtha etc. are also quite late usages
And this ridiculously late metre:
na.cora.bhayam.na.ca.sarpa.bhayam.na.ca.vyāghra.bhayam.na.ca.mṛtyu.bhayam./
And Vedic verses, half verses, word forms are mixed so well that one would need to examine each one independently in order to decide which ones are genuine. This German work perhaps gives references for parts which are directly from Rigveda, etc. along with those that have been quoted in brAmaNa etc.