Willtor's response to the OP (since many pages have passed):
I think the story is mythological, so I don't see how to read any historical specifics out of it. Therefore, I couldn't say whether there was a first pair who were "awakened" to life in God (and possibly life apart from God), or whether there was a more gradual awakening in society or societies. The St. Paul question is a good question, though:
---
I think it's likely that he thought there was a first man, but it is not clear to me that he took the Fall account as an historical set of events. This is kind of a funny distinction to make, I admit, but it's less strange in his time and culture. If you forget evolution for a moment, what other possibility is there than that there was a first couple? There was probably nobody of his day that thought there wasn't a first pair of humans: Jew, Christian, Pagan, etc. But the question is still open whether the account in Genesis is an historical record of those individuals. Some people thought so, but others didn't.
In St. Paul's case, if he took the Genesis account as an historical record of events, the passages you mention become anomalous:
For example (from the Romans 5 passage), it's hard to imagine a literalist saying that death came to all people because all sinned, in reference to Adam's sin. That puts all people in the place of Adam. Notice that, even as he compares Christ to Adam, he doesn't say the same thing for Christians: that all are alive because all are righteous, in reference to Christ's righteousness. There's an imbalance between sin and righteousness, and he goes on to elaborate.
But the value of the dichotomy between Adam and Jesus is in whom one finds one's origin. So, you identify with Adam or you identify with Jesus. This is true, in St. Paul's reading of the account, even if Adam was not an historical person, because all are in the place of Adam, already. Mind you, I would be surprised if he ever asked the question in the first place, but his theology doesn't require it.
None of this means that he didn't also take the account literally: that this was an historical tale of the first people, who I am sure he really did think existed as individuals. Merely, people of his time disagreed as to the historicity of the story, and his references don't make it clear as to which side he took (if either).
TL;DR: St. Paul probably thought Adam was an historical person, his theology didn't depend on it, and it is grey in my mind as to whether he took the Fall account as an historical record of events.
A bit of post-analysis: What would it mean to me if it became clear that he thought the account was historical? Suppose another epistle is unearthed, where St. Paul is very explicit on this point.
I would not change my view. As a form of literature, the creation accounts and the garden story are something akin to a mythology. The theology of sin that is argued in the Romans passage could be used to write the Fall account as a myth if it did not already exist.
