There are no answers in Genesis

[Angrboda]

I don't know the answer to this question, so I'll just throw it out there for anyone to answer.  Can a case be made from pre-first-century Talmud that the old testament should be interpreted along lines similar to Neo's, that it is more allusion and metaphor, a spiritual message consisting primarily of pseudo-historical accounts that function as allegory first, and as history second?

I can't answer because I don't know what pre-first-century Jew to read.  But it bears noting that we have a major contributor from the 1st whom I believe to be an influence on Christianity in Philo of Alexandria.  He wrote volumes on allegorical interpretation of Genesis.  It's very interesting and preciously naive.  I'm a huge fan.  From Philo, you get the impression that the first step toward finding "a son of God," which is how he described the Logos, is to stop thinking of Genesis as mere history.

Philo of Alexandria

Well, this is the problem I have with Neo. It's fine to approach the bible as containing much more than history, but it's incoherent to approach it as making no historical claims whatsoever. The answer, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, Neo insists that where he draws the line is objectively defensible and he shits on anybody who dares question his divine wisdom. It's even more unfortunate as Neo's doing so appears to be a transparent case of an interpretational stance and defense of said stance driven by 21st-century political needs that he has, quite irrespective of how they might relate to what is true or can reasonably be defended. In short, Neo is a typical conservative Christian, inventing the God that he needs, as opposed to the God that might be or is.