Allegorical = older ?

[Giuseppe]

Mark - the consensus argues - is the first Gospel.

And often it is said that it is not a coincidence that the first Gospel is allegorical, since Jesus was created de novo (even if a historical Jesus existed) with a lot of allegories, midrash, etc.

But are we sure that too much allegorism is equivalent to an older age?

We agree surely that the GOAL of the first evangelist was:

to persuade the readers (at least the outsiders) that the Gospel story is REAL HISTORY.

But if Mark is allegorical - and Mark is allegorical - then why can even the more ignorant gentile of the world (a guy who is starting this thread) realize very easily that Mark is allegorical ?
It seems not precisely the best way to realize the GOAL.

Is not just the excessive allegorism of Mark a real evidence that goes AGAINST Markan priority?

Is not proto-Luke less allegorical than Mark because proto-Luke is the first Gospel?

[Giuseppe]

For example, without even being the advocate of Marcion's Gospel's priority à la Vinzent (but as simple advocate of the proto-Luke priority à la Klinghardt), it is sufficient to compare the incipit of both Marcion's Gospel and Mark:

GMARCION: Jesus comes down from heaven.

GMARK: Jesus comes from Nazaret in Galilee to Jordan.

A reader of GMARCION (and hence of proto-Luke, with proto-Luke different from GMARCION), has only to read the incipit for what is says: a guy comes down from heaven. Period.

A reader of MARK has to know, about that only line:

what is ''Nazaret'' allegory of?
what is ''the Galilee'' allegory of?
who is the ''man'' Jesus before that he goes to Jordan?


By this example, I want only to argue that proto-Luke seems very a more literal and more simple story than Mark, even if proto-Luke is more long than Mark.