Cronus are suggested by philologists of the highest authority. These
contradictions are, unfortunately, rather the rule than the exception in
the etymological interpretation of myths.

* * * * *

The opinion of Mr. Max Muller has always a right to the first hearing
from English inquirers. Mr. Muller, naturally, examines first the name
of the god whose legend he is investigating. He writes: 'There is no
such being as Kronos in Sanskrit. Kronos did not exist till long after
Zeus in Greece. Zeus was called by the Greeks the son of Time ([Greek]).
This is a very simple and very common form of mythological expression. It
meant originally, not that time was the origin or source of Zeus, but
[Greek] or [Greek] was used in the sense of "connected with time,
representing time, existing through all time." Derivatives in -[Greek]
and -[Greek] took, in later times, the more exclusive meaning of
patronymics. . . . When this (the meaning of [Greek] as equivalent to
Ancient of Days) ceased to be understood, . . . people asked themselves
the question, Why is Zeus called [Greek]? And the natural and almost
inevitable answer was, Because he is the son, the offspring of a more
ancient god, Kronos. This may be a very old myth in Greece; but the
misunderstanding which gave rise to it could have happened in Greece
only. We cannot expect, therefore, a god Kronos in the Veda.' To expect
Greek in the Veda would certainly be sanguine. 'When this myth of Kronos
had once been started, it would roll on irresistibly. If Zeus had once a
father called Kronos, Kronos must have a wife.' It is added, as
confirmation, that 'the name of [Greek] belongs originally to Zeus only,
and not to his later' (in Hesiod elder) 'brothers, Poseidon and Hades.'
{58a}