> but they contain archetypes and language patterns that were foundational for works that came afterward. So what? Other works lack these archetypes? No, they

> but they contain archetypes and language patterns that were foundational for works that came afterward. So what? Other works lack these archetypes? No, they don't. Literature at school isn't supposed to be courses on comparative linguistics and theory of literature. A short intro is enough. Then move on to modern works. Bible is better suited to history lessons on history of religion alongside other religions.