Analyze or Interpret?

As we vigorously debated this claim in class, "Homer can be analyzed...but not interpreted", I kept asking myself what the hell the difference is between these two things. I've come to a number of conclusions on this sticky subject, none of which I feel hold any more validity than the other, however I do believe there is a point to be made here.
When one reads further into both of these stories, with Auerback's claim in mind, it is rather hard not to at least give the man some credit for his claim. As I see it, Homer finds himself having to explain every single action, and detail in the story, so there really is no room for interpretation, it just is what it is, nothing more, and nothing less. However in the Bible, and particularly the story of Issac, and Abraham, we see an entirely different style of expression. With Homer's style, we are presented with evidence, to support any claim, or action that might be happening in the Odyssey, and sometimes when all seems lost, a God comes down from "heaven"(Olympus I assume), and Homer narrowly escapes his almost certain doom.
However in the Bible, the style in which God is portrayed, and the characters being manipulated, or commanded by God are shown in an entirely different light. We really are not presented with any reason why God is doing what he's doing to Abraham, Issac, nor do we have any inclination as to how he feels about the actions he is taking against them. What I believe this suggests is perhaps we the people(the audience) are left to interpret what the Bible is trying to tell us. In the Odyssey we see the exact opposite, and we know exactly why the Gods take certain actions, and we are given a detailed explanation as to why certain events take place. Oddly enough when there seems to be even a hint of discrepancy in the Odyssey, we have a sudden Divine Intervention, and the Gods come to save the day. We see no such thing in the bible.