The postmodern turn in the humanities is now at a point that requires response and revision to some deconstructionist trends. As a case study, this article examines the inversion principle formulated by Claude Lévi-Strauss against Yair Zakovitch’s analysis of mirror narratives through three examples. In the first example, the mirror narratives of two destructions in Genesis are shown to be better explained by the inversion principle. The second example considers aspects of the Mesopotamian flood hero Utnapishtim that have been divided in subsequent Jewish traditions between Enoch and Noah. The third example considers the transformation of the myth of the sacrificial son in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These three examples lead to the following conclusions: (1) that other myths, particularly in Genesis, should be reconsidered in light of the inversion principle; (2) that this principle is crucial for the reception history of biblical narratives, as seen in the development of the figure of the flood hero in Second Temple Judaism; and (3) that intentional adaptations are equally susceptible to the subconscious structural changes that occur in the intercultural journeys of myth, as described by Lévi-Strauss.