This thesis undertakes a fundamental rethinking of ‘myth’ as a heuristic analytical tool in Pauline studies. It contends that the discipline’s longstanding resistance to, and insufficient engagement with, the concept of myth has deprived scholars of a rich and illuminating means of interpreting Paul’s letters. It first appraises the reception of ‘myth’ in Pauline research since the dawn of the scientific method, unpacking how the category has previously been engaged, and to what extent this has been critically informed. Each of the main phases of prior engagement with Paul, his gospel and ‘myth’ are shown to have been ideologically driven, theoretically confused and superficial, and to have scarcely ever risen above the popular pejorative equation of myth with ‘unhistorical’. After noting a few nascent attempts in recent decades to engage a more nuanced approach, this thesis then engages more fully than has hitherto been done in New Testament scholarship with modern myth theory across various branches of the humanities and social sciences, with a view to constructing a theoretically informed model of core properties and functions of mythic narrative. A preliminary context for the development of the scholarly study of myth is offered. This is then met by an unpacking of six positive currents in crossdisciplinary myth theory, along with what this body of scholarship has to say about the popular myth-versus-history stance that has loomed large in Pauline studies, where this is shown to be a false dichotomy. Armed with an extensive crossdisciplinary modelling of ‘myth’, the thesis then demonstrates how this offers a rich interpretative framework shedding light on the operative character of the gospel story in key problematic portions of the Pauline corpus—including Romans 6:3-11, 2 Corinthians 1 and 4, and Philippians 2:5-11.