Not the entire Old Testament, however. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are generally considered allegorical. The rest of Genesis is partially historical, but it cannot be given the same amount of credibility as modern history, firstly because it was likely written thousands of years after the fact, and secondly because it is "sacred history" meaning its intent was to teach lessons and provide explanations, not to be factually accurate.

The rest of the Pentateuch is considered more historical, since it was more recent, but it is still sacred history, as are pretty much all of what are called the "historical books."

The books of Tobit, Job, Jonah, etc. are often considered works of fiction, and the Catholic Church fully allows this position.

The prophetic books are considered literal so far as their genre allows--i.e., they employ metaphors, symbols, allegories, and hyperbole, so a reading of them must take that into account. That doesn't mean we think they're unreliable.

So, none of the biblical books contain historical writings the way we'd write them today, but that doesn't mean they're all to be taken allegorically. It just means that we shouldn't get our knickers knotted up over the dearth of archaeological evidence for Solomon. Being that he was considered a wise and wealthy king, his story could have been embellished to emphasize his greatness and subsequent fall from grace.