The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Minimalist]

For skeptics of the traditional authorship of the gospels, some questions:

1. Why would copies of gospels circulate anonymously all over the Roman empire for decades and then suddenly be ascribed to the authors we know today unanimously without dispute in the second century?
   
2. When the gospels were being read in the liturgy, how would they have been distinguished one from another if they did not have names such as “The Gospel of Mark” or “The Gospel According to Luke”?
   
3. Why attribute a gospel to someone who had a somewhat dubious track record (like Mark who abandoned Paul on a missionary journey) unless it was true that Mark wrote it? 
   
4. Why attribute a gospel written for a Jewish audience to Matthew, a man who would have been hated as a Roman collaborator by that audience, unless it was true that Matthew wrote it?
   
   

1.  Do you have EVIDENCE ( meaning not your bible bullshit ) that they were "circulated all over the Roman Empire?
2.  As in #1, there is no evidence that the various xtian cults scattered about knew anything about any "liturgy" which was a much later concept.  Your silly-assed bible was still being fought over in the 4th century by bishops with an axe to grind against each other.
3.  Oh, you mean like all the other "disciples" who supposedly fled and denied your godboy when he was arrested.  Real pussies, that bunch.
4.  Who better?