Craig

Gengwall, I can see the argument working backwards from “she” in v15 (who can’t be Eve), being the same person as “the woman” in v14, and “a woman” in v12. This all fits very nicely if the Greek perfect tense definitely means what the traditional text books say.
It would be a lot easier to accept though if it made more sense of v14, rather than making it more confusing. Even with the perfect tense translated as you did, it would say
And Adam was not deceived, yet the woman from Ephesus, being deceived, has come to be in the transgression.
Why does Paul contrast Adam directly with the Ephesian woman? Why does he leave out a step in his logic and an essential point in his argument and not mention that Eve was deceived? Don’t you find this a bit of a “squirmy” part of your argument? Don’t you feel a bit uneasy about saying the passage is about how the woman is like Eve in her deception if Paul never mentions Eve’s deception?
Now if the Greek is clear, then so be it, and we need to assume Paul left out that bit and hoped that Tim would be able to fill in the gaps or that Eve “morphed” into the Ephesian woman in Paul’s mind as he was writing the sentence because they are so alike. Is that the way Paul normally writes? And then isn’t that getting just as bad as those who “morph” all women into Eve as the “she” in v15?
Cheryl’s 2006 interpretation, on the other hand, (if I understand it correctly) doesn’t have this problem, and doesn’t get me in quite so much bother when I discuss it with others. So at this stage, I am keeping an open mind on these two alternatives (Cheryl’s 2006 view v Cheryl’s 2011 view) until I can get a better understanding of it.
Thanks Gengwall and Cheryl for your comments here to help in this. I can see I have a bit of homework to do!