In Christianity, blind faith is good faith

[Randy Carson]

Incorrect.

There is every reason to believe that the authors of the gospels really WERE Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Further, two of them were apostles of Jesus while the other two had access to the apostles.

That's not what the scholarly consensus is, on this matter, even among christian historians. Actually, we know for a fact that the names associated with the gospels weren't present in the initial works- none of them ever identify themselves within the text, or claimed to be who you're claiming they are- and that those autographs were, in fact, added in the second century by the early church. We also know that the idea that those autographs correspond to the actual biblical figures was added later still, by bishops like Papias.

I suppose it would depend on which sampling of scholars your use for your "consensus", but over the past 20 years or so, the shift has been toward a more traditional or conservative view; namely, that Jesus really existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, that his disciples believed that he was resurrected, and so forth.

Now, you are correct in saying that the names of the Authors were not written on the title pages of the manuscripts; but that does not mean that we cannot be confident about their actual authorship. For example, Luke is a slam-dunk. He identifies himself in the book of Acts as the travelling companion of Paul (there are several "we" passages, and Paul mentions him by name in an epistle or two. Further, in the opening of Acts, Luke says explicitly, "In my former work...". So, there really isn't any doubt about the authorship of Luke-Acts even among skeptics.

John is self-actually identified by the author who refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved". John was younger, possibly a cousin of Jesus, and perhaps because of this familial relationship, Jesus looked out for His young cousin.

Here are the two passages of scripture:

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

and

John 21:20-25
20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

Now, you seem to dismiss Papias' indentification of the gospel writers. On what authority or basis are you able to do this? The historian, Eusebius, notes the following:

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to MARK, the author of the Gospel. It is in the following words: "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning MATTHEW he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14-17)

Isn't it interesting that Eusebius cites Papias who said that Mark recorded the sayings of Jesus which he heard from Peter accurately but "not indeed in order" and that Luke specifically states that he is writing an "orderly account".

Is that just a coincidence? Or was Luke aware of Papias' comments and Mark's un-ordered account and specifically stated that he was taking a different approach in the writing of his own reportage?