the bible...as literature

I've been forcing myself to stop thinking in terms of theology, because frankly it's too easy (and not the point of the class) I'm sure we could all pick holes in the Bible and it's religious message when taken literally, we've all noticed some weird discrepancies by now. So I've been working on looking at the bible and it's role as literature.
Karen's post made me think about it mostly. She asked why circumcision is a requirement, why was it put in the bible? Well it does seem random, but when i thought about it I figured it was there for the same reason a lot of old laws were there, Hygene. Sure now it's all well and good, we bathe regularly, we got cool disinfectant wipes and lysol, and if something does happen, a trip to the doctor will probably fix you right up. Well in ye olden times it wasn't the same. Things were dirty, people didn't bathe much, nasty little germs all around and if you got sick, it could very likely kill you. So there were certain things people noticed would kill them, or make them sick. Pork for instance couldn't be properly prepared at the time, you eat pork, you get sick, why? well we didn't have the technology at the time to trace to cause and effect, nor even the knowledge of nasty little germies, so god did it. He's made at you. same with shellfish. So I may not have the er...expert opinion on the matter of circumcision but, i think it was just a way to make things a bit cleaner and less likely to get all infected and gross XP
Really the bible is like all the good classical literature, it's a collection of the human experience used as a guide. You can break down classics into morals Don't kill your brother and marry his wife, don't have a big stupid blood feud, teenage love angst sucks...okay i might have given a few english professors an anerism summarizing shakespeare so simply, but i think i've proved a point. Frankenstein shows us to not try and surpass the bonds of what is human, the bible tells us love thy neighbor, or don't eat pork, or whatever.
Honestly looking at it as a peice of literature, I can't say it's the best. It doesn't have the kick that more modern literature has, and to be fair the style of prose hadn't had time to develope yet, but it's also missing the spirit that oral tales seem to have. It's certainly no Beowulf. It strikes me as a sort of hybrid, between a how to guide, and chicken soup for the soul. Perhaps it will get better as I go along.