Thanks to those that have pointed out my misunderstanding of Canonical Criticism and suggested some further reading. Here’s my attempt to fix my earlier misconception. As always, feel free to question further and add more.

I’m going to pull back my statement: “Canonical criticism doesn’t give a rip about all that authorship and dating stuff”. This is a gross overstatement. Canonical criticism does give a rip about all that authorship and dating stuff. However, it is concerned with breaking down “the long established tension between canon and criticism” (45). It rebels against breaking down the text down into little bits but seeks to apply “full and consistent use of the historical critical tools.” (45)

While I oversimplified the questions and concerns in my original post, it is true that “canonical analysis focuses its attention on the final form of the text itself,” (73) which may lead to those issues. To me, this makes sense: the focus is on the final form of the book, since that’s what we have and that’s what we use.

This approach allows us to make hermeneutical gains by attempting to establish the texts ‘spiritual’ use rather than historical or social…to view the texts as canon.

I feel Jeff j summed up well by saying that Canonical Criticism is an:

approach which allows one to define the ever-changing hermenuetical shape of a text through time by seeking to understand not only what it means in the present, but what it has meant in the past.

Quotes are taken from: Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as scripture. London: SCM, 1979.