Noach's fourth son, and how not all sources are created equal

Noach had three sons, Shem, Cham, and Yefes. So the Torah tells us {perek 5}.

לב וַיְהִי-נֹחַ, בֶּן-חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ, אֶת-שֵׁם אֶת-חָם וְאֶת-יָפֶת.

32 And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Contrast with everyone else in the perek, about whom we read וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים, וּבָנוֹת. Whereas by Noach's death we read

כח וַיְחִי-נֹחַ, אַחַר הַמַּבּוּל, שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה, וַחֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה.	28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.
כט וַיִּהְיוּ, כָּל-יְמֵי-נֹחַ, תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה, וַחֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה; וַיָּמֹת. {פ}	29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died. {P}

And indeed, it seems that he did not have any other sons. After all, we see post-mabul {perek 9} that

יט שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵלֶּה, בְּנֵי-נֹחַ; וּמֵאֵלֶּה, נָפְצָה כָל-הָאָרֶץ.

19 These three were the sons of Noah, and of these was the whole earth overspread.

From those and not from any other. And regarding this pasuk:

כב וַיַּרְא, חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן, אֵת, עֶרְוַת אָבִיו; וַיַּגֵּד לִשְׁנֵי-אֶחָיו, בַּחוּץ.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Rashi writes:

saw his father’s nakedness: Some say that he castrated him, and some say that he sodomized him. — [from Sanh. 70a]

וירא את ערות אביו: יש אומרים סרסו ויש אומרים רבעו:

Castration would prevent any further sons, and thus only these three would split the world. Of course, this is a midrash.

But there is another position recorded in a "midrash", the Chronicles of Yerachmeel. What is this work?

CHRONICLES OF JERACHMEEL: A midrashic anthology in the form of a history of ancient times authored by El’azar ben Asher ha-Levi, late 13th/early 14th centuries (transl. by M. Gaster in Oriental Transl. Fund New Series)

In the Chronicles of Yerachmeel, we read what is pictured to the right. He cites the Greek historian Strabon, that there Noach had a fourth son. This when Noach was 100 years old, rather than the 500 years old at which he had Shem, Cham and Yefet. In his form and image makes one think of the parallel pasuk by Adam, when he had an additional son, Shet. And his father gave him gifts, just as Avraham gave his children from other wives gifts before sending them off, because they would not share the same destiny as the Jewish people. These
"gifts" were apparently astrology. If Nimrod, son of Shem, consulted with him, then he must have survived the flood, though he is not mentioned. So I don't know how this all works out, within this theory.

Indeed, at the end of all this, the author states he considers it just a legend, and does not feel the need to reconcile it with another legend which puts Nimrod and Avraham as living at the same time.

But we are lucky here because the author cited his sources, and thus made clear just where he was getting these ideas.

Should we grant them any credence? I don't see why we should. It is a late work, from the late 13th or early 14th century, and is drawing on non-Jewish sources. And indeed, this idea of a fourth son of Noach is found in other non-Jewish sources:

There exist various traditions in extrabiblical sources claiming that Noah had children other than Shem, Ham, and Japheth, born variously before, during, or after the Deluge.

According to the Quran (Hud v. 42-43), Noah had another unnamed son who refused to come aboard the Ark, instead preferring to climb a mountain, where he drowned. Some later Islamic commentators give his name as either Yam or Kan'an.

According to Irish mythology, Noah had another son named Bith, who was not allowed aboard the Ark, and who attempted to colonise Ireland with 54 persons, only to be wiped out in the Deluge.

Some 9th century manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles assert that Sceafa was the fourth son of Noah, born aboard the Ark, from whom the House of Wessex traced their ancestry; in William of Malmesbury's version of this genealogy (c. 1120), Sceaf is instead made a descendant of Strephius, the fourth son born aboard the Ark.

An early Arabic work known as Kitab al-Magall or the Book of Rolls (part of Clementine literature) mentions Bouniter, the fourth son of Noah, born after the flood, who allegedly invented astronomy and instructed Nimrod^[11]. Variants of this story with often similar names for Noah's fourth son are also found in the ca. 5th century Ge'ez work Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan (Barvin), the ca. 6th century Syriac book Cave of Treasures (Yonton), the 7th century Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius (Ionitus^[12]), the Syriac Book of the Bee 1221 (Yônatôn), the HebrewChronicles of Jerahmeel, ca. 12th-14th cent. (Jonithes), and throughout Armenian apocryphal literature, where he is usually referred to asManiton; as well as in works by Petrus Comestor c. 1160 (Jonithus), Godfrey of Viterbo 1185 (Ihonitus), Michael the Syrian 1196 (Maniton),Abu Salih the Armenian c. 1208 (Abu Naiţur); Jacob van Maerlant c. 1270 (Jonitus), Abraham Zacuto 1504 (Yoniko) and Jehiel ben Solomon Heilprin c. 1697 (Yuniku).^[13]

Martin of Opava (c. 1250), later versions of the Mirabilia Urbis Romae, and the Chronicon Bohemorum of Giovanni di Marignola (1355) make Janus (i.e., the Roman deity) the fourth son of Noah, who moved to Italy, invented astrology, and instructed Nimrod.

According to the monk Annio da Viterbo (1498), the Hellenistic Babylonian writer Berossus had mentioned 30 children born to Noah after the Deluge, including sons named Tuiscon, Prometheus, Iapetus, Macrus, "16 titans", Cranus, Granaus, Oceanus, and Tipheus. Also mentioned are daughters of Noah named Araxa "the Great", Regina, Pandora, Crana, and Thetis. However, Annio's manuscript is widely regarded today as having been a forgery^[14].

That the Roman versions have this as Janus, the Roman deity, should give us even more reason to simply discard this tale. Of course, as I wrote above, we lucked out by having the author of the Chronicles of Jerachmeel cite his sources. But other contemporary works do not always say where they pull their ideas from.

For example, Sefer Hayashar (read about it here on Wikipedia), also from about the 13th century, does not cite its sources. And then it claims that Zuleika was the wife of Potifar. But this comes from "midrashim" upon the Koran, not from Jewish sources. But once it passes into a Jewish source, some simply treat it as Jewish tradition miSinai.

Related to this is my recent post about Chizkuni (13th century) asserting that the Torah begins with a bet because just as a Bet is open to the north, so is the world, and demons enter from there. And this finds parallel in the Sefer Raziel Hamalach (13th century). If it makes sense in the intellectual climate for this to have been intended literally, then I don't see the need to give some deep metaphorical interpretation while asserting that the literal meaning was not intended. I wouldn't even necessarily do this for Chazal in many instances, and a late medieval Biblical commentator is not Chazal. What is this aversion with assuming that a Rishon cannot be incorrect in science? After all, not all sources are created equal.