Homer vs. Biblical authors: "Analysis vs. Interpretation"

In Erich Auerbach’s essay “Odysseus’ Scar”, Auerbach claims that “Homer can be analyzed...but he cannot be interpreted.”  Before addressing this claim, I feel it is important to know the difference between analysis and interpretation.

Analysis is defined by www.Dictionary.com as “the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements.”  Basically analysis is studying the story by breaking it into parts.  www.Dictionary.com defines interpretation as “an explanation of the meaning of another’s artistic or creative work.”  So interpretation is basically describing what is going on in the story, and why it is happening.

So when Auerbach claims that “Homer can be analyzed...but he cannot be interpreted,” then Auerbach is saying that you are able to break up the story into different parts in order to study them, but you are not able to describe what is going on in the story and why.  The reason Auerbach claims you are unable to do this is because the Homeric style is “fraught with background.”  “...the Homeric poems conceal nothing, they contain no teaching, and no secret meaning.”

This statement by Auerbach “fraught with background,” basically means that there is so much detail in the story, that none of it needs to be explained.  All the meaning is right in the text, and there is nothing left to the reader that he has to figure out the meaning of.  The story is simply for enjoyment, and there is no guiding truths or life lessons that are hidden in the narrative. 

On the other hand, Auerbach argues that “The Scripture stories do not, like Homer’s, court our favor, they do not flatter us that they may please us and enchant us-they seek to subject us, and if we refuse to be subjected we are rebels.”  “Doctrine and promise are incarnate in them and inseparable from them; for that very reason they are fraught “background” and mysterious, containing a second, concealed meaning.”  “Far from seeking, like Homer, merely to make us forget our own reality for a few hours, it seeks to overcome our reality: we are to fit our own life into its world, feel ourselves to be elements in its structure of universal history.”

So basically Auerbach’s argument is that the writings of Homer are for enjoyment only, and one should not try to understand its deeper meanings, because there are none there.  In contrast, the Scriptures were written to be interpreted, and written in such a way that the reader must search out the meaning of the passages.

I tend to agree with Auerbach’s assessment of the two styles.  In fact the Bible even states in 2 Timothy 2:15, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”  This just reinforces the fact that the Bible was mean to be studied.  Homer should be read as it was mean to be read...for the pleasure of the reader.  

Enrich Auerbach