I think that the whole notion of “historical” is a modern one, created by modern science, and that it’s this entirely modern approach that pits history against myth. Paul didn’t believe in an historical Adam or a non-historical Adam. He just believed in Adam. It’s only as modern readers that we divide things — for ourselves — into historical and non-historical.
From The Apostle Paul did not Believe in the Historical Adam, Joel Hoffman, Ph.D. Several years ago I learned that ancient Hebrews did not have the same concept of what constitutes the proper way to record history that modern Westerners hold to. That blew my mind, but also made Bible reading into a better experience.
Via the wonderful Dr. Platypus