My thoughts as an English major and Eastern Orthodox Christian are that we need to be careful not to read our own modern conceptions back in time into ancient texts which were composed during a different era with different standards and literary conceptions. That goes for both Western Christians like Evangelicals who insist on total literalism as well as secular historians who try to criticize texts like the Bible and Qur'an by modern historical standards. For one, how do we know that the authors of these texts were trying to be 100% literalistic? Two, how can we assume that they were trying to accurately record history like we do today? What if the readers (or listeners since the oral transmission of these texts was probably more common than the written transmission prior to the printing press) at the time of its composition would not have interpreted it in the same way we do today? What if they had different standards? What if the author was trying to meet their standards and not ours today? That said, I believe any attempt to subject ancient texts--particularly religious ones like the Bible or Qur'an--to modern critique and standards is futile, and reeks of a very Enlightenment-based arrogance that our way is the only way and history revolves around us. And from a religious-historical perspective, I would point out that in the Eastern Orthodox Church today and for most of Christian history prior to American Protestantism, total biblical literalism was never a dogma nor was it the norm or seen as the only way to interpret the Bible. Many of the Saints and Church Fathers, in fact, I might even go so far as to say the majority, interpreted the Bible in an allegorical or symbolic way. The purpose of the text was never understood as to be a 100% literalistic account of history, but to bring human beings closer to God and teach important theological messages. You don't need literalism for that. Sometimes the best, most meaningful stories are the ones that aren't completely true. Take the Alexandrian Fathers for example like Origen of Alexandria, or Ss. Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, and Barnabas for example. These are canonized Saints in the Orthodox Church whose writings are authoritative and used to help us understand the Bible. They all interpreted it allegorically in one way or another. For example, the prohibition against the consumption of pork is interpreted as a metaphor meaning to not be like the pigs who only come to their master when they want food but otherwise ignore him (in other words, don't just come to God out of need like pigs). The Psalm which says blessed are those who bash their infants against the rocks is interpreted as a metaphor meaning to stomp out your sins while they are fresh (in their infancy so to speak) through Christ (who is often called the rock in the Bible). Yes, that is right. Contrary to American Protestant fundamentalists who insist that biblical literalism is the ancient standard and anything other is just a modern innovation, the inverse is actually true. Allegory, symbolism, and metaphor is the more ancient method and is what the Church--which St. Paul calls the pillar and ground of the truth (Protestants hate this passage)--employed throughout her history and still employs today. In fact, it wasn't until the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that the fundamentalist conception of total literalism only became such a popular, dogmatic view in Protestantism as it is today. That said, maybe instead of trying to examine the "science" of these texts or judge them by modern standards, we should instead try to understand what the authors had in mind and what standards they were operating under then, and what the original audience would have thought. We have to drop this arrogance. We can't judge ancient times by the standards of our modern times. Rather, we need to rediscover their standards as we enter their turf.