In a former post, I argued that we should hold to both a literary reading and a historical reading of Genesis 1. I argued against those who try to divide these two, either picking the literary reading or the historical reading. Further, when you do this to Genesis 1 it opens the door for people to do it with the gospels. That post is here.
Just today I saw a post on postbarthian.com which argued this very thing. They argued for the reality of the of the open tomb and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, the gospel accounts were literary (legend-like) accounts of that basic truth.
Again, I want to affirm both the literary and the historical nature of those parts of scripture. If we affirm literary, without the historical, we begin to argue over what precise amount of theological content can be affirmed from this literary account. If we affirm both, we have fullness.