This post seems to suggest that in the not too recent past it was normal to interpret the bible literally and that those that do not need some kind of personal excuse for not doing so.
There is abundant evidence that is is not the case at all. My understanding is that biblical literalism is largely a recent development, due to sects such as the 7th Day Adventists and similar, around the end of the c.19th and subsequently*.
The main traditions of the established churches have always realised, from 200AD onwards, that interpretation was needed, generally of the first and second kinds in your list, though sometimes latterly the third too, as science started to advance. Just about any member of one of the more established Christian denominations, with a structure to its clergy and a developed body of theology, (e.g. Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian) is a "non-literalist" by default.
* From the Wik article on biblical literalism: Karen Armstrong, a most popular liberal living historian of religion writes, 'Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.'
P.S. In fact this Wiki article is worth a read, to get a more accurate idea of how limited the prevalence of literalism actually is:
Biblical literalism - Wikipedia