Can Truth be Communicated Through Myth?

In the New Testament, Jesus is recorded as having used parables to communicate his truth to those who followed him, and even to those who were only curious. In striving to understand those parables we do not stop to think (at least not for long) whether or not they describe actual people and historically verifiable events. We understand that the characters and actions may not represent living individuals, but that, regardless, the stories communicate various spiritual realities related to God and his workings in this world.

Does it matter to you whether or not the Samaritan was a real person (though unnamed) who actually did exactly the things this story relates (Luke 10:25-37)? The point of the story is very clearly summarized by Jesus' question and response: "'Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?' He said, 'The one who showed him mercy.' Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'" Did the first-century sowers of seeds (real farmers) throw their seeds on hard paths and rocky or weedy soil, as depicted in Jesus' parable (Luke 4:5-8)? While it might happen inadvertently, a real farmer would be as careful as possible to prepare his soil, removing rocks and weeds. Does the absurdity of a farmer wasting his precious seed on obviously unproductive ground take anything away from the spiritual reality Jesus was communicating through this parable (Luke 4:11-15)? Does it matter whether or not Lazarus and "the rich man" were real, flesh and blood human beings, or just characters made up in order to communicate a truth point to Jesus' hearers (Luke 16:19-31)?

Stories, whether based on real historical people and events or on fictitious characters and made up events, have always been used by speakers and authors to communicate what they consider to be real life-applicable, and absolutely true, concepts and principles. Whether communicated via poetry,  parable, proverb or apocalyptic literature, truth, reality and/or life-applicable principles have been clearly communicated both by the spoken and written word.

But what about myth? The idea that something communicated by myth is equivalent to something that is, at best, fanciful or, at worst, false, is a modernist understanding (or should I say misunderstanding) of the nature and purpose of myth. Dictionary.com provides the following definitions for the English word "myth":

1. A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. Stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. Any invented story, idea, or concept: e.g., His account of the event is pure myth.
4. An imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. An unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

The etymology of "myth" is found in the ancient Greek word "μῦθος" (muthos) and means: 'something said' (i.e., word, speech, conversation, a saying, a proverb, a message, even advice or counsel) and/or 'tale, story, narrative' (i.e., legend, fable) and carries with it no inherent idea of something that is "without a determinable basis of fact or natural explanation" or "a unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution."

If "myth" means a tale or story or narrative that is not inherently false or intended to be deceptive or misleading, but rather a genre used by ancient peoples/cultures to communicate what was understood to be reality, does that open your mind to the possibility that Genesis 1-11 is mythical - not false, but a story/narrative used to inform its hearers/readers of reality?

In my next blog, I'll will attempt to explain why I understand Genesis 1-11 to be mythical and thus intended to communicate certain eternal realities or truths as understood by the ancient Israelite people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVMjX-CCcpo