Horus:

EVERY NT book with a disciple's name on it is simply attributed to that disciple, whether there's evidence for this or not.

I presume you're talking about the CARM website that Nanotech cited. It's interesting, but it's an apologetic website, not a scholarly one. The best you can say is, they state their bias for Biblical inerrancy right up front so you know what you're dealing with.

At any rate, the four Gospels are anonymously written, and there is no indication at all that the writer was present at any of the events written about in the gospels. I don't personally know of any attribution of these four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John prior to Irenaeus, who wrote in the late 2nd century, at least 150 years after Jesus' death.

These gospels were written in Greek, not the native language of any of the disciples of Jesus, who were all Galileans with the possible exception of Judas and another one or two who might have been Judeans. These guys spoke Aramaic, and the New Testament wasn't written in Aramaic. The gospels were most likely written after the death of most or all of the apostles, and certainly appear to be based on accrued mythology spun by fanatical adherents to the fast-growing Christian movement.

Contrast the gospels with the letters of Paul (some of them, anyway), that clearly reflect the view of an active apostle dealing with real live issues that must have been going on in the region where Paul worked, Greece and Asia Minor. So some attributions are more likely to be reliable than others, apparently. Even among Paul's letters, some are regarded as highly likely to be authentic (Galatians, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Romans, 1 Thessalonians, and a couple others) and others are most likely written by someone else and attributed to Paul (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians I think).

The bottom line here is that you have to weigh the arguments for and against each individual book.

-jay-