narrativeevents, and humans are as they are at the present time. Moreover, myth
is connected with ontology, embodies meaning, and speaks only of real-
ities. It is the language of the sacred, and if the sacred is equivalent to the
real, then the realities conveyed by myth are sacred realities. Therefore,
activities done according to the mythical model or archetype belong to
the sphere of the sacred and being. In this way, myths are social and
personal heuristic devices and provide members of a society with knowl-
edge of their identity, while also embodying a universal message.
Following Eliade at the University of Chicago, Wendy Doniger views
myth as an inherently comparative form of narrative that is also interdis-
ciplinary. Nonetheless, when studying a myth its context must be taken
into consideration. Doniger’s emphasis on the importance of context is
stressed by her use of the metaphor of the “implied spider,” which means
that the author of a myth is implied by what the myth reveals about the
author’s experience. This suggests that it is possible for a scholar to wit-
ness the webs of significance, meaning, and culture that he/she leaves
behind in the form of myths. The myth itself represents the shared expe-
rience, which is already narrative, of human beings with the culture.Further reading: Doniger (1998); Doty (1986); Eliade (1963); Frazer (1994);
Girard (1989); Lévi-Strauss (1963, 1970, 1973); Lévy-Bruhl (1985); Müller
(1895–1898); Tylor (1871); Von Hendy (2002)
NARRATIVE
An oral or written story that can serve several purposes: pedagogical
illustration, spiritual inspiration, behavioral motivation, moral or ethical
example, or pure entertainment. The framework of a narrative is temporal
in the sense of a chronological sequence, which implies that it can be
historical. A narrative can, of course, be strictly fictional.
Narratives are both lived, which suggests that they are inherent in
culture and history, and they are told, which reflects that narratives are
imposed upon religious culture and history. The first perspective is that
of the insider, whereas the second viewpoint is that of the outsider.
Coming from within the tradition, the insider kind of narrative articulates
a position that the tradition is normative, whereas the outsider accounts
originate from within the context of that person’s own discourses. Having
made this distinction between insiders and outsiders, narratives still have
the potential to overlap and borrow elements from each other, such as the
ancient Hebrew borrowing from Canaanite religious culture.