Xander and Jan.H-
Both of you can call be ignorant all you want but I will not lower this discussion to a personal attack.
Jan.H. you would lose your bet on being able to list scholarly works on the Bible. I have done far more study than you seem to understand and being a trial lawyer by trade I am more than capable of understanding evidence. In fact, in the responses by both you and Xander I see a glaring lack of it. What you both present is mere conjecture and opinions. You have yet to name one scholar that agrees with you.
Xander, who do you think would be discussing the authorship of the Gospels but Christians? Christians, more than anyone want to know the validity of their faith. I trust that you have limited knowledge of how the canons were selected and want went into those decisions. Authorship was one of the tests to determine if certain works were considered to be part of the canon. Please name a mainstream Christian scholar who rejects the accepted authorship of any of the Gospels.
Biblical scholars have been studying this issue for centuries. The opinions that you have both presented have been discarded over and over again. Some of them are being raised again at this time through the Jesus seminar and others but these are not accepted premises.
What you discount as "tradition" cannot be thrown out so readily. Accepted "traditions" in the church are tested based upon the other evidence available. Those that don't stand up are noted as such. They are not accepted blindly.
You are wrong that there is no evidence that "John" wrote the gospel that bears his name. There is both extrinsic evidence and internal evidence to support this conclusion. For example, the writing style of Revelation which was written by John is strikingly similar to that of the Gospel. Additionally, early writings by other apostolic writers accept this as the case.
Your quote from Matthew 9 does nothing to destroy the authorship. One reference to Matthew in the third person is not evidence that he did not write the gospel. The gospel makes it clear that he was writing an historical text. He was not writing to tout his own accomplishments.
Let me ask you some questions: If the Gospels were anonymous, why is there no surviving tradition of another author for the Gospels? Second century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four gospels to the persons that now carry their name. This is different from the apocryphal gospels. As one writer put it, "It is hard to believe that the Gospels circulated anonymously for 60 or more years and then someone finally thought to put authors on them-- and managed to get the whole church across the Roman Empire to agree."
Why then were such unlikely persons chosen to be the authors? Matthew was a reviled tax collector who the jewish peoplpe hated, Luke was only mentioned breifly by name in the new testament, Mark is described as a person who abandoned Paul in Acts 15. Highly unlikely people to attribute the basis for a religion on when there were other more sutiable people, such as Andrew or Peter.
The premises that you set out are not logical, are mere speculation and do not refute the accepted evidence of authorship.
I would also ask if you raise the same questions and skepticisms about other secular ancient texts. There are countless secular ancient texts that are internally anonymous but whose authorship is accepted by external references and tradition.
