The difference between literal history and history. Literal history being the history witnessed by the author, versus the Creation which was witnessed by God and the angels. Genesis of Creation was the act of God and his actions made it be, but not necessarily EXACTLY as described in Genesis. Versus, the History of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, the Judges, etc, which is literal history witnessed by humanity and the people of Israel.
I believe the Church uses the term "pre-history" when refering to the first 11 Chapters of Genesis. Probably based on much of what you said - although some of the writers didn't actually witness what they wrote about. (Like Luke or Moses) I have read a good case for Genesis being small sections of writings from the actual "Patriarchs" preceding Abram that were later compiled into one book, Genesis. Who can say. The point is that God desires a particular message to be brought out in the Scriptures, and it is up to the Church to teach it formally, as well as the individual to practice some sort of Scriptural spirituality to take meaning from these writings in his own walk with Christ. (which presumes one not take a meaning that is the opposite of the Church) I don't see the point of arguing about whether Jonah was a real historical account or not. Perhaps for Protestants who deny the existence of a teaching Church, it is a problem and they thus defend its literalness against all evidence. But for a Catholic, we can read Scripture spiritually as well as literally. We realize that God can speak through various literary genres, to include parables or legendary stories.
Regards