You know, that amounted to no more than two sentences in my post. It is hardly evidence for an axe to grind with “Gnostic” approaches to Scripture! You are right that the term “Gnostic” refers to a variegated stream of thought, but I thought it was fairly clear which aspect I was referring to, an aspect common to most if not all the Gnostics: the idea that there is a higher form of knowledge available only to the spiritual (and no, this idea is not wholly absent from canonical Scripture as well). I didn’t mean anything more than that. Besides, I didn’t use “Gnosticism” as an oath upon my own lips: I only drew the parallel because many who believe in the divine Authorship idea are those for whom Gnosticism is unthinkably bad.
My problem is that even if Smith believes that his preferred readings are available for more than theological types, it took theological types to find them when they defined the canon of Scripture and passed down the correct interpretation to us; moreover, supposing that only those who are more theologically sophisticated or advantaged by their place in history have access to a proper chronology-discerned interpretation – without which Smith finds interpretation incorrect – yields the same problem of God the Author “inspiring” His human proxies to mean something entirely different from what they themselves understood.

On issues like this, I like to look to Jesus as the example to follow.  Of course, that’s easier said than done – if for no other reason then because we do not have an extended teaching of his on this specific subject, nor do we even have an exact list of the writings he understood as constituting the Scriptures.

Nevertheless, it seems he had what we would call a high view of Scripture.  At the very least, he seemed to regard the words of Moses and the prophets as relevant and even determinative in his own life.  The question for me, then, is how do I follow that example in 2012.  

I don’t know all your views but you do seem to me to be a thoughtful man so I hope you will think on that, whether you have in the past or not.  

As I think you’re probably already aware, I don’t relish the term “word of God” applied to the canon itself. That said, I don’t at all rule out the idea that the prophets and other authors at least occasionally spoke a message from God that has been recorded in Scripture. I just don’t think we can know with any certainty which those occasions were, so we can’t rely on the fact that it’s recorded in Scripture to shortcut our need for discernment. As Lewis said, we must “[steep] ourselves in its tone and temper,” etc. I’m sure you won’t find that satisfactory, but that’s where I’m at.

I am not here to defend Smith’s view or Chicago-style inerrancy.  However, you said,

“In short, I have seen no compelling, non-circular reason to maintain the belief that God should in any meaningful sense be considered the author of the Bible.”

What then is your understanding of the expression “word of God”?  To be more specific, when the prophets said, “Thus saith the Lord” and then proceeded to deliver a message, do you consider God the author of that message?