Short answer
Only in part. What survives was kept with remarkable care. Priests passed the Rig Veda down by heart, word for word, and scholars call it extremely well preserved. But most of the Veda's branches did not survive. Around 150 BC the grammarian Patanjali counted more than 130 branches of the Veda. Many had texts of their own. Today about a dozen Vedic collections survive, and only one of the Rig Veda. A classic Hindu work on dharma assumes that parts of the Veda are lost. The meaning was in dispute early too. In an ancient study of the Veda's words, one teacher says the verses have no meaning, and Yaska's book has to answer him. The Qur'an says God (﷾) will guard it. What God (﷾) willed to remain in it is kept complete, in a language still spoken today.
Full explanation
The Hindu case: a text kept word for word
Hindus answer that no text on earth has been handed down with more care than the Veda. Priests learned the hymns by heart and recited them in several set forms. One gives each word alone, without the sound changes of connected speech (the padapatha). Others repeat each word with its neighbours in fixed patterns, so that any slip shows at once. Western scholars agree. Stephanie Jamison and Michael Witzel, scholars of Sanskrit, call the surviving Rig Veda extremely well preserved. Witzel says the Vedas should be seen as tape recordings, handed down usually without the change of a single word. Hindus add that the branches (shakhas) were schools of recitation, not different Vedas. The loss of a school, they say, is not the loss of the Veda. The Veda is eternal: the sages saw it, and did not make it. And when a teacher named Kautsa said that the Vedic verses have no meaning, Yaska answered him point by point. Yaska wrote the Nirukta, an ancient study of the words of the Veda.
Jamison and Witzel write that the Rig Veda has come down basically in only one extremely well preserved school, that of Shakalya, whose word-by-word analysis of the text (the Padapatha) is also handed down; the Bashkala and Mandukeya collections are lost. Their table of Vedic texts lists the surviving collections: one of the Rig Veda, three of the Sama Veda, six of the Yajur Veda (one of them partial) and two of the Atharva Veda, which they say differ considerably from each other. The table marks other texts as lost, such as the Paippalada school's Brahmana, which has no surviving text.
Witzel writes that the Vedas were composed orally and still are, in part, oral literature, and that they should be regarded as tape recordings made during the Vedic period and handed down orally, usually without the change of a single word.
“Vedic stanzas are significant, because (their) words are identical (with those of the spoken language).”
“As to (the objection) that their meaning is contradictory, (we reply) that the same (objection) is applicable to the everyday speech of the world, as 'this Brāhmaṇa has no rival', 'this king has no enemies', &c. As to (the objection) that one enjoins a person who is already acquainted, (we reply) that in salutation a person announces his name to one who is already acquainted with it; the mixture of honey and milk is declared (to the guest) who is already acquainted with it. As to (the objection) that Aditi is everything, (we reply) that it is the same in the everyday speech of the world, as 'all fluids reside in water'. As to (the objection) that their meaning is obscure, (we reply) that it is not the fault of the post if the blind man does not see it; it is the fault of the man himself.”
What Patanjali counted, and what survives
Around 150 BC the grammarian Patanjali, showing how wide the use of words is, lists the four Vedas "divided in many ways". He counts 101 branches of the Yajur Veda, 21 of the Rig Veda and 9 of the Atharva Veda. The Sama Veda he gives a thousand "paths". Witzel judges the list clearly unrealistic in part. Even leaving out the Sama Veda's thousand, Patanjali counts 131 branches. Against that list, the table of Vedic texts drawn up by Jamison and Witzel shows about a dozen collections of hymns and formulas (samhitas) surviving. Of the Rig Veda, in their words, basically only one survives: that of the Shakala school. The Bashkala and Mandukeya collections are lost. Witzel notes that the Bashkala had more hymns and ended with a different hymn. He refers there to the Rig Veda's extra hymns (the Khilas), which survive in a collection kept in Kashmir. So some of those extra hymns may survive. What is lost is the Bashkala Rig Veda itself, with its own order and ending. Books of explanation are gone too. The Paippalada school's Brahmana has no surviving text. Early Yajur Veda texts such as the Caraka Samhita survive only in fragments. A later text gives a different count, which should not be mixed with Patanjali's. The Muktika Upanishad, a late Upanishad, has Rama count the branches. He gives the Rig Veda 21, the Yajur 109, the Sama 1,000 and the Atharva 50. Each branch, he says, has one Upanishad. By its count there were 1,180 Upanishads. It names 108.
In the introduction to his great commentary on Panini's grammar, Patanjali explains how wide the use of words is. Among the fields of their use he lists the four Vedas, with their auxiliary sciences and secret teachings, "divided in many ways": 101 branches of the Adhvaryu priests (the Yajur Veda), the Sama Veda "of a thousand paths", the Rig Veda "in 21 ways" and the Atharva Veda "in 9 ways".
Witzel judges Patanjali's list of schools (21 of the Rig Veda, 101 of the Yajur Veda, 1,000 of the Sama Veda, 9 of the Atharva Veda) to be clearly unrealistic in part (p. 259, n. 10). He notes that other Rig Veda versions, now lost, such as that of the Bashkala school, had more hymns and ended with a different hymn; only the Shakala Rig Veda ends with the hymn it has today (p. 265, n. 32). He compares them there with the Rig Veda's apocryphal hymns (the Khila collection), which he describes on pp. 284-285 as handed down as a separate collection only in Kashmir. He also describes early Yajur Veda texts known only from fragments, among them the now lost Caraka Samhita (p. 298).
Jamison and Witzel write that the Rig Veda has come down basically in only one extremely well preserved school, that of Shakalya, whose word-by-word analysis of the text (the Padapatha) is also handed down; the Bashkala and Mandukeya collections are lost. Their table of Vedic texts lists the surviving collections: one of the Rig Veda, three of the Sama Veda, six of the Yajur Veda (one of them partial) and two of the Atharva Veda, which they say differ considerably from each other. The table marks other texts as lost, such as the Paippalada school's Brahmana, which has no surviving text.
Rama tells Hanuman that the Rig Veda has 21 branches, the Yajur Veda 109, the Sama Veda 1,000 and the Atharva Veda 50, and that in each branch there is one Upanishad (1,180 in all by that count). He then tells him to study the Mandukya alone for release, or else 10, or 32, or the 108 Upanishads, whose names he lists.
Hindu law itself assumes lost Veda
The Mimamsa is the school that defends the Veda's authority. Its digest, the Nyaya-mala-vistara of Madhava, a medieval scholar, explains why the law books of Manu and other sages still bind. They gather rules "scattered through different Vedas", it says, both those that can be seen and those that cannot. John Muir, a 19th-century Scottish scholar of Sanskrit, translated the passage. He reads it as the belief that parts of the Veda which Manu and others had before them are now lost. The same digest says that learned men of today cannot call up that distant Veda as Manu could. So the law is said to rest on Vedic texts that no one now living can read. Muir remarks that this assumption makes Manu and the other sages practically almost infallible.
“The variously understood Smṛiti is founded on the Veda, because the traditions, such as those regarding investiture, study, etc., have been compiled by Vedic men, such as Manu and others. Nor is it to be surmised that the Smṛiti is useless, since it throws together in a condensed form a variety of injunctions regarding matters to be observed, which are scattered through different Vedas, both such as are visible and such as are invisible to us.”
“This last expression appears to refer to the supposition that some parts of the Veda which Manu and others had before them when compiling their own works have now been lost.”
The meaning was already in dispute
Yaska's Nirukta is, its translator says, the oldest Indian book on etymology, the study of where words come from. It records a teacher named Kautsa. He held that it was useless to look for the meaning of the Vedic verses, because they have no meaning. One of his reasons was that they contradict each other. One says there was only one Rudra, while another speaks of Rudras in thousands. Yaska rejected Kautsa, and answered each point. The verses have meaning, he says, because their words are the words of everyday speech. But the debate shows that the sense of the hymns had not come down along with their sound. Yaska himself asks who the Ashvins are, twin gods to whom many hymns are addressed. He reports four answers. Some say heaven and earth, others day and night, some the sun and the moon, and the historians say two good kings. Yaska gives these as the views of different people, not as layers of one meaning. The words were kept. But what they meant had become a matter of rival schools.
“'If (the object of the science) is to ascertain the meaning of Vedic stanzas, it is useless,' says Kautsa, 'for the Vedic stanzas have no meaning'; this is to be established by the following arguments: propositions have their words fixed, their order, too, is immutably fixed. Further, the accomplishment of the ritual form is enjoined by the Brāhmaṇa, as 'Spread it wide', and so he spreads; 'Let me pour out', and so he pours out. Further, their meaning is impossible, as 'Save him, O plant!' and while striking, one declares, 'Do not injure him, O Axe!' Moreover, their meaning is contradictory, as 'There was but one Rudra and no second', and 'Rudras, who on earth are thousands without number'; 'O Indra! thou art born without a foe', and 'Indra vanquished hundred armies together'.”
“Vedic stanzas are significant, because (their) words are identical (with those of the spoken language).”
“Who then are the Aśvins? According to some they are heaven and earth; day and night, according to others. Some take them to be the sun and the moon, (while) the historians regard them as two virtuous kings.”
Later hands in the law books and the epic
Manu says that the Veda and the law books alike must never be called into question. The law books show changes all the same. The Vasishtha Dharmasutra, an ancient law book, quotes a verse from "the Manava", a book of Manu. Meat cannot be had without harm to living beings, it says, so the sages say slaughter at a sacrifice is not slaughter. Today's Manusmriti has the same verse with a different ending: "let him therefore shun (the use of) meat". Georg Bühler, a 19th-century scholar who translated both books, judged that the ending had been altered to suit the doctrine of non-injury. Yet earlier in the same chapter, today's Manu still says that slaughter for sacrifices is not slaughter. Bühler adds that four verses Vasishtha gives in the names of Harita and Yama stand in Manu as words of the father of mankind. Ralph Griffith was a 19th-century translator of the Ramayana (the epic of Rama). He judged the close of its sixth book to be the work of a later hand than Valmiki's. He called its seventh book an appendix. Indian scholars, he adds, ascribe that book to Valmiki all the same. The traditional text does not mark which parts came later.
“But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law shone forth.”
“Meat can never be obtained without injuring living beings, and to injure living beings does not procure heavenly bliss; therefore the (sages declare) the slaughter (of beasts) at a sacrifice not to be slaughter (in the ordinary sense of the word).”
“Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.”
“Svayambhû (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word). Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences. On offering the honey-mixture (to a guest), at a sacrifice and at the rites in honour of the manes, but on these occasions only, may an animal be slain; that (rule) Manu proclaimed. A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state.”
“Among the verses the first is found entire in the metrical Manusmriti, and the second has likewise a representative in that work, though its concluding portion has been altered in such a manner that the permission to slaughter animals at sacrifices has been converted into an absolute prohibition to take animal life.”
“Moreover, there are four verses which, though Vasishtha attributes them to Hârîta and Yama, are included in our Manusmriti and treated as utterances of the father of mankind.”
“Even if the story were not complete, the conclusion of the last Canto of the sixth Book, evidently the work of a later hand than Válmíki's, which speaks of Ráma's glorious and happy reign and promises blessings to those who read and hear the Rámáyan, would be sufficient to show that, when these verses were added, the poem was considered to be finished. The Uttarakáṇḍa or Last Book is merely an appendix or a supplement and relates only events antecedent and subsequent to those described in the original poem. Indian scholars however, led by reverential love of tradition, unanimously ascribe this Last Book to Válmíki, and regard it as part of the Rámáyan.”
The Qur'an: guarded, and understood
The Qur'an says that God (﷾) sent it down and will guard it. It says it was made an Arabic Qur'an so that its hearers may understand, and that it was made easy to understand and remember. Its history fits the claim. The angel Gabriel went over the Qur'an with the Prophet (ﷺ) every year, and twice in his last year. Soon after his death, Abu Bakr had it gathered into one volume, from written pieces and from the memories of men. Less than twenty years after his death, Uthman sent copies of that volume to every province. Every Muslim community today recites the same 114 surahs. Arabic, the language they are in, has been spoken and read without a break since the Qur'an came down. The site's pages on Uthman's copies and on the oldest manuscripts give the evidence in full.
“We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).”
“We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom).”
“And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?”
Abu Hurayra reports that Gabriel went over the Qur'an with the Prophet (ﷺ) once every year, and twice in the year he died.
Zayd ibn Thabit reports that after many who knew the Qur'an by heart were killed at Yamama, Abu Bakr asked him to gather the Qur'an into one volume, reminding him that he used to write down the revelation for the Messenger of Allah. Zayd collected it from written pieces and from the memories of men, and the finished copy passed from Abu Bakr to Umar and then to Hafsa.
Anas reports that Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman, alarmed at how the soldiers of Syria and Iraq differed in reciting the Qur'an, urged Uthman to save the community before it differed over its Book as the Jews and Christians had. Uthman borrowed the collected sheets kept by Hafsa, had Zayd ibn Thabit and three men of Quraysh copy them, telling the three that wherever they differed with Zayd they should write in the dialect of Quraysh, in which the Qur'an was revealed, returned the sheets to her, sent a copy to every province, and ordered all other written Qur'anic material to be burned.
The Hindu replies, answered
Jamison and Witzel, Vedic Hinduism (1992)
Jamison and Witzel write that the Rig Veda has come down basically in only one extremely well preserved school, that of Shakalya, whose word-by-word analysis of the text (the Padapatha) is also handed down; the Bashkala and Mandukeya collections are lost. Their table of Vedic texts lists the surviving collections: one of the Rig Veda, three of the Sama Veda, six of the Yajur Veda (one of them partial) and two of the Atharva Veda, which they say differ considerably from each other. The table marks other texts as lost, such as the Paippalada school's Brahmana, which has no surviving text.
Cited for
No scripture on earth was kept with more care. The Rig Veda has been recited syllable by syllable, in several forms that check one another, since the Vedic age. Western scholars themselves call it extremely well preserved. A text kept so exactly cannot be called unpreserved.
The response
That is true, and it should be said plainly. What survives of the Rig Veda was kept with remarkable care, and nothing on this page says the surviving text is corrupt. But the question is not whether what survived was kept well. It is whether the Veda was kept. Care over what survived does not bring back what was lost. Of the Rig Veda's schools, in Jamison and Witzel's words, basically only one text remains. The Bashkala version, with more hymns and a different ending, is lost. Of the branches Patanjali counts, about a dozen collections remain. Hindu law itself, in the Mimamsa digest, says it draws on Vedas that can no longer be seen. And exact sound is not kept meaning. By Yaska's day a teacher named Kautsa could say the Vedic stanzas have no meaning, and Yaska reports four answers to who the Ashvins are.
Where it lands — The surviving Rig Veda is remarkably well kept. The Veda as a whole was not: most of its branches are lost, and its meaning was already disputed in antiquity.
Patanjali, Mahabhashya, Paspashahnika — on the varttika "sarve deshantare" (Kielhorn, vol. 1, p. 9)
In the introduction to his great commentary on Panini's grammar, Patanjali explains how wide the use of words is. Among the fields of their use he lists the four Vedas, with their auxiliary sciences and secret teachings, "divided in many ways": 101 branches of the Adhvaryu priests (the Yajur Veda), the Sama Veda "of a thousand paths", the Rig Veda "in 21 ways" and the Atharva Veda "in 9 ways".
Cited for
The branches (shakhas) were schools of recitation, like the Qur'an's readings (qira'at). They recited one Veda with small differences, and the Sama Veda's thousand paths are ways of singing. The loss of a school is not the loss of the Veda.
The response
The branches did not differ only in sound. Many schools had texts of their own. Witzel notes that the lost Bashkala Rig Veda had more hymns than ours and ended with a different hymn. Jamison and Witzel also list whole books, such as the Paippalada school's Brahmana, of which no text survives. The Muktika Upanishad, later than Patanjali and with a different count, gives every branch its own Upanishad. That makes 1,180, of which it names 108. That is more than a matter of pronunciation. The Qur'an's readings are a different kind of thing. Muslim scholars agree that every recognised reading fits Uthman's written text and goes back to the Prophet (ﷺ) through a sound chain. Those readings are still taught and recited today, and none contradicts another. No reading adds a surah or takes one away. The site's page "Are there different versions of the Qur'an?" gives the details.
Where it lands — Many of the Veda's branches had texts of their own, and most of the branches are now lost. The Qur'an's recognised readings are still taught and recited, fit one written text, and none contradicts another.
Nirukta 1.16 — chapter 1, section 16 (Yaska's replies to Kautsa's objections)
“As to (the objection) that their meaning is contradictory, (we reply) that the same (objection) is applicable to the everyday speech of the world, as 'this Brāhmaṇa has no rival', 'this king has no enemies', &c. As to (the objection) that one enjoins a person who is already acquainted, (we reply) that in salutation a person announces his name to one who is already acquainted with it; the mixture of honey and milk is declared (to the guest) who is already acquainted with it. As to (the objection) that Aditi is everything, (we reply) that it is the same in the everyday speech of the world, as 'all fluids reside in water'. As to (the objection) that their meaning is obscure, (we reply) that it is not the fault of the post if the blind man does not see it; it is the fault of the man himself.”
Cited for
Yaska answered Kautsa point by point. The stanzas have meaning. If some find them obscure, it is not the fault of the post that the blind man does not see it. The meaning is kept by those who learn the Veda within the tradition.
The response
Yaska did reject Kautsa, and this page says so. The point is what the debate shows. A teacher named Kautsa, quoted in Yaska's Nirukta, could hold that the Vedic stanzas have no meaning. He argued it from their contradictions. Some say Kautsa is only a stock opponent, set up to be answered. Even so, Yaska treats his view as one that needs a full reply. Yaska's own answer grants that the meaning can be obscure to some. He blames the reader: it is not the fault of the post if the blind man does not see it. Among Vedic scholars, he says, only a man of profound knowledge is worthy of praise. His book then reports four different answers to the plain question of who the Ashvins are. Learning within the tradition has not settled the meaning since. Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva were all trained within it. They read the same Upanishad line three ways: as identity with Brahman, as a Brahman marked by difference, and as "thou art not that". The site's page "Is the soul the same as God?" sets out their readings. The Qur'an asks to be understood by those who hear it. It was made an Arabic Qur'an "that ye may be able to understand", and made easy to understand and remember. Muslims differ on some details too. But the Qur'an's Arabic has been spoken, read and written without a break since it came down. So any reading can be checked against its words.
Where it lands — Yaska defended the Veda's meaning, but his own book shows the meaning was already disputed, and the tradition's greatest teachers still differ. The Qur'an was given in a language its hearers understand.
Nyaya-mala-vistara 1.3.3 — Madhava's digest of the Mimamsa (J. Muir's translation)
“The variously understood Smṛiti is founded on the Veda, because the traditions, such as those regarding investiture, study, etc., have been compiled by Vedic men, such as Manu and others. Nor is it to be surmised that the Smṛiti is useless, since it throws together in a condensed form a variety of injunctions regarding matters to be observed, which are scattered through different Vedas, both such as are visible and such as are invisible to us.”
Cited for
Nothing needed is lost. The Veda is eternal and was made by no one; the sages (rishis) only saw it. The sages who wrote the law books saw the whole Veda, including the parts no longer recited, and gathered its rules. What is invisible to us was visible to them, so the law still rests on the complete Veda.
The response
Muslims too believe that the Qur'an's original is kept with God (﷾), "in a Tablet Preserved", and that the Qur'an recited on earth is that book. Grant that the sages only saw an eternal Veda. The question is whether what they saw was handed down. An eternal Veda that no one can now recite cannot tell anyone what it contains. On the Mimamsa's own account, part of it can no longer be seen. The same digest admits that learned men of today cannot call up that distant Veda as Manu could. So no one can check the law books against the texts they are said to rest on. Muir notes that this assumption makes Manu and the other sages practically almost infallible. And the law books themselves have changed. Bühler shows a verse from an older book of Manu standing in today's Manu with a new ending. The old ending said slaughter at a sacrifice is not slaughter; the new one says to shun meat. The Qur'an's case rests on the copy on earth: recited, written down, and gone over with the Prophet (ﷺ) every year.
Where it lands — The law books are said to rest on Vedic texts that no one can now read, and their own wording has changed. An eternal Veda that no one can recite cannot show what was lost.
Manusmriti 2.10 — chapter 2, verse 10
“But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law: those two must not be called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law shone forth.”
Cited for
Changes in Manu or the Ramayana do not touch the Veda. These books are smriti, remembered tradition, and the Veda (shruti) stands above them. Where they differ, the Veda wins.
The response
Manu itself sets the law books beside the Veda. Neither may be called into question in any matter, since from those two the sacred law shone forth. The law Hindus have lived by, and the story of Rama they hear, come from these books. Griffith judged the close of the Ramayana's sixth book to be by a later hand, and its seventh book an appendix. Yet Indian scholars, he notes, ascribe the seventh book to Valmiki all the same. Bühler found verses that Vasishtha gives in other sages' names standing in Manu as the words of the father of mankind. So the traditional text gives no mark to show which parts are later. And the Veda itself does not escape: most of its branches are lost, and Hindu law assumes the missing parts.
Where it lands — Manu ranks the law books with the Veda. Both the law books and the epic show later hands that the traditional text does not mark.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4986 — Kitab Fada'il al-Qur'an (Virtues of the Qur'an), hadith 4986
Zayd ibn Thabit reports that after many who knew the Qur'an by heart were killed at Yamama, Abu Bakr asked him to gather the Qur'an into one volume, reminding him that he used to write down the revelation for the Messenger of Allah. Zayd collected it from written pieces and from the memories of men, and the finished copy passed from Abu Bakr to Umar and then to Hafsa.
Cited for
The Qur'an too was gathered and copied by men after the Prophet (ﷺ) died. If the Veda's schools count against the Veda, Muslim copying counts against the Qur'an.
The response
Gathering and copying a book is not losing it. Zayd ibn Thabit, who used to write down the revelation for the Prophet (ﷺ), gathered the Qur'an for Abu Bakr. He used written pieces and the memories of men. Less than twenty years after the Prophet (ﷺ) died, Uthman had copies of that same volume sent to every province. It was done openly, while many who had heard the Qur'an from him were alive. Ali, the next caliph, said Uthman acted only after consulting the Companions. The parchment of two of the oldest surviving leaves has been radiocarbon-dated to between 568 and 645. The test dates the skin, not the writing. Apart from small points of spelling, they carry today's text. The site's pages on Uthman and on the oldest manuscripts give the evidence. A copy of an existing volume, made within one generation, is not a branch lost over centuries.
Where it lands — Uthman copied a volume already gathered, in the Companions' lifetime and after consulting them. The oldest manuscripts carry today's text.
Qur'an 2:106 — Surat al-Baqara (The Cow), verse 106
“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?”
Cited for
The Qur'an itself says that God abrogates verses or causes them to be forgotten. Umar said a verse on stoning was revealed and recited, yet it is not in the Qur'an. Aisha said a verse on five sucklings was still being recited when the Prophet (ﷺ) died. So the Qur'an lost verses too.
The response
The Qur'an does say that God (﷾) replaces some revelations and causes some to be forgotten, and Muslims do not deny it. Surat al-A'la says the same: the Prophet (ﷺ) would not forget what he was taught, "Except as Allah wills". Ibn Kathir, a 14th-century commentator on the Qur'an, reports that some commentators read that exception as abrogation, meaning what God (﷾) willed to lift. So Muslims do not claim that nothing revealed was ever withdrawn. They hold that what God (﷾) willed to remain is preserved complete, as 15:9 promises. The two reports fit this. Umar, in al-Bukhari, says the stoning verse was revealed and recited, and that its ruling remained, a ruling the classical jurists gave to a lawful court alone. He also feared that people would one day say they do not find it in the Book of Allah (﷾). Al-Nawawi, a 13th-century scholar of hadith, names it as a verse whose wording was withdrawn while its ruling remained. Aisha, in Sahih Muslim, says a verse of ten sucklings was replaced by one of five. Al-Nawawi explains that the withdrawal of the five came so late that some still recited it when the Prophet (ﷺ) died. When they learned of it, they stopped, and all agreed it was not to be recited. Abrogation could come only from God (﷾), while revelation was coming. In the Prophet's (ﷺ) last year Gabriel went over the Qur'an with him twice, and soon after his death Abu Bakr had it gathered. The Veda's branches were lost over centuries by the schools meant to keep them. The site's page on abrogation explains what was changed and why.
Where it lands — The stoning and suckling reports speak of passages once recited that are not in the Qur'an today. Al-Nawawi names both as passages whose recitation was abrogated, the five so late that some had not heard. Muslims hold that what God (﷾) willed to remain is preserved complete, which is not the loss of branches over centuries.
Sukthankar, Prolegomena to the Adiparvan (1933)
Sukthankar, general editor of the critical edition of the Mahabharata at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, writes that the whole passage in which Brahma visits Vyasa and Ganesha is employed as scribe is missing from the Bengali version. He says the Ganesha episode is found only in late Northern (Devanagari) manuscripts. He calls the account of the text being written down by Ganesha at Vyasa's dictation a very late interpolation in some inferior Devanagari manuscripts. He notes that the epic says it was first published as a free recitation by Vaishampayana, a direct pupil of Vyasa, and recited again by Sauti, who had heard it only once. He judges that such free recitation could not keep the text pure without strict safeguards, such as were adopted for the Vedic texts, and that, as far as is known, no such safeguards existed for the epics.
Cited for
The Mahabharata, which holds the Gita, was not left to chance. Vyasa dictated it, and Ganesha himself wrote it down. So the text is exactly as Vyasa gave it.
The response
The Ganesha story is not part of the critical edition's text. V. S. Sukthankar led that edition at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Poona. He found the story only in late Northern manuscripts, and none of it in the Bengali version. He called it a very late interpolation in some inferior manuscripts. The epic itself, he notes, says it was first published as a free recitation by Vaishampayana, a pupil of Vyasa. Sauti, the bard who tells it in the epic's frame story, recited it again after hearing it once. As far as is known, Sukthankar says, such recitation had none of the strict safeguards used for the Vedic texts. So, by the finding of the epic's own critical editors, the book that holds the Gita was not handed down as the Veda was. The Qur'an's case is set out above: recited by many from the start, gathered into one volume, and the same today for every Muslim.
Where it lands — The Ganesha story is itself a late addition. The epic that holds the Gita was handed down by free recitation, without the Veda's safeguards.
Perspectives
The Veda has been kept faithfully
The Veda is eternal. Its sound has been kept exactly by the recitation schools, a feat Western scholars also admire. The branches were schools reciting the one Veda. Where a branch is no longer recited, the law books of Manu and the sages keep its rules. The Veda's meaning is known to those who learn it within the tradition, as Yaska showed against Kautsa.
The Mimamsa and Vedanta traditions, and modern Hindu teachers
Scholars call the Rig Veda that survives extremely well kept. They compare the Vedas to tape recordings, usually handed down without a single word changed.
Rebuttal
True, and the page says it: what survives was kept with remarkable care. But care over what survived does not bring back what was lost. Of the Rig Veda's schools, in Jamison and Witzel's words, basically only one text remains, and the meaning was in dispute early.
The Mimamsa school holds that the law books gather together rules scattered through the Vedas. These include rules we can see, and those we cannot.
Rebuttal
The Mimamsa digest itself says the rules are scattered through Vedas, some of which cannot now be seen. Muir reads this as a belief that parts of the Veda are lost. An eternal Veda that no one can recite cannot show what it contains.
Yaska rejected Kautsa's claim that the Vedic verses have no meaning. He answered that their words are the words of everyday speech.
Rebuttal
Yaska did answer Kautsa. But his own book then gives four different answers to who the Ashvins are. Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva, all trained in the tradition, read one Upanishad line three ways. The Qur'an was made an Arabic Qur'an, so that its hearers may understand.
What the record shows
The surviving Rig Veda was kept with great care. But most of the Veda's branches and many of their texts are lost, and Hindu law assumes the loss. The meaning of the hymns was disputed in antiquity, and the law books and the epic show later hands.
Patanjali, around 150 BC, counts 21 branches of the Rig Veda, 101 of the Yajur Veda and 9 of the Atharva Veda. He gives the Sama Veda a thousand paths.
Scholars think Patanjali's list of branches is partly unrealistic. But only about a dozen samhita collections survive, and only one of the Rig Veda.
A lost Rig Veda collection, that of the Bashkala school, had more hymns and ended with a different hymn.
A Mimamsa digest assumes that the law books drew on Vedic texts no longer available.
The Nirukta records a teacher who said the Vedic verses have no meaning. And it gives four answers to who the Ashvins are.
Bühler found a verse from an older book of Manu standing in today's Manusmriti with its ending altered.
Griffith judged the close of the Ramayana's sixth book, and its seventh book, to be later than Valmiki.
Where the academy stands
Status: Consensus
Vedic scholars agree on both halves of the answer. The surviving Rig Veda, handed down in the school of Shakala, is extremely well preserved. Witzel compares the Vedas to tape recordings passed down usually without the change of a single word. They also agree that most of the Vedic schools and many of their texts are lost. Of the Rig Veda's schools basically only one text survives. Whole Brahmanas and Samhitas of other schools are known only from fragments or not at all.
The Islamic perspective
The Qur'an was revealed in a living language, recited and written down as it came. It was gone over with the Prophet (ﷺ) every year, gathered soon after his death, and copied for every province within twenty years. God (﷾) withdrew some passages while revelation was still coming. What He willed to remain is preserved complete, as He promised.
The Qur'an promises that God (﷾) will guard it.
The Qur'an says it was made Arabic so that it would be understood. And it says it was made easy to understand and remember.
Gabriel went over the Qur'an with the Prophet (ﷺ) every year, and twice in his last year.
Abu Bakr had the Qur'an gathered into one volume, and Uthman sent copies of that volume to the provinces.
The passages God (﷾) withdrew, He withdrew while the revelation was still coming. They were not lost later by those who kept the Qur'an.