It may serve as an allegory, but again, what from the context makes think it did not literally happen? This is an issue of contention that I have with a lot of modern scholarship in the bible. Often the Borgians and Spongians of the world lament that the literal view of scripture is too confining and there is more to the bible stories than what can literally be taken from them. And I think to myself, sure, in fact that's a very traditional idea of biblical exegesis, that there are 2 basic senses within which the Scriptures can be read: the literal (or historical) and the spiritual (or typical or figurative). The spiritual sense is further divided into the allegorical, the tropological, and the anagogical. I can even fully accept that one passage can have multiple senses. The prophets often prophesied about immediate things but also about eternal things at the same time. But then what modern scholars do is make anything they don't like an allegory and divorce it completely from its historical, literal sense, leaving only the typical sense. When that happens they begin to, using a word from 2 Peter 3:16, wrest the scripture in a way that can be most abominable. Moreover, it's a practice that deviates from their stated intent. Reading the bible ONLY as allegory, especially the parts which are hard to accept by our 21st century mindsets, is not reading the bible as something "more than literal" (witch is such a narcissistic dig at bible conservatives) it's only reading the bible as something different than literal. And when the that is done even when parts of the bible are obviously literal, then so much of the meat that makes Christianity a living faith is lost and one is left with the King James Version of Aesop's Fables.....and perhaps that is objective for many all along.