What is the basis for a mythical reading of Genesis 1-2?

I have seen many times the claim that Genesis 1-2 is *intended by the author(s)* to be taken as a myth, that ancient people took it as a myth, etc. Now, maybe I'm just weird, but I don't see this from simply reading the text. I have seen numerous articles and such explaining why the text, statistically and grammatically, is consistent with other "plain history" accounts in Scripture. As best I can determine, the majority of Christians throughout history¹ have taken it as plainly historic. I have seen *atheists* stating that it is "clearly" *intended* to be plainly historic. What is the basis (*Biblical* basis, if possible, but I'll take extra-Biblical arguments as well) for a non-historic reading? **PLEASE NOTE:** Arguments from "science" (that is, Materialist assertions which are founded in a desire to deny God) are clearly tainted and therefore not acceptable. (¹ I'm aware there are exceptions. Unless it can be shown that a *majority*, i.e. more than 50%, of Christians rejected a plain historic reading, please limit comments on this point.)