Homer- Analysis v Interpertation

Auerbach claims that "Homer can be analyzed... but he cannot be interpreted." In his Essay "Odysseus Scar" we read about how intensely Homer describes everything, from what people are thinking, down to which hands they use for things, such as when Odysseus grabs his nurse.

Auerbach points out a stark contrast to Biblical writers. In the case of Issac and Abraham, for example, we have no idea what God's motives are, it doesn't say how Issac or Abraham feel and there are no details about the journey itself, which I had not realized was a three day journey. With so few details, the reader is forced to "fill in the blanks".  This is where the interpretation comes in. Two people can read the same Biblical passage and come away with different impressions. For instance, when a father reads this story, he will think about what it would be like to give up his only child, but when a child reads this he or she is more likely to think what it would be like to almost be sacrificed.

Had Homer written the story of Issac and Abraham, I believe we probably would have seen God conversing with some one, perhaps other Gods, and telling them why he needs to test Abraham.  We would have read a lamentation by Abraham over the impending loss of his only son.  His son would have probably said something more than "where's the sheep". 

Is one style better than the other? Is Homer better because he explains everything? Is the Bible better because we can glean our own meaning? I'm not sure the Odyssey could survive a Biblical re-write. It would end up very short, that's for sure. The themes could still be present, the wife who waited when everyone else said "he's not coming back", the son's journey from boyhood to manhood, etc.I don't know that it would have had the staying power it did though.