"The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
"today the majority [of scholars] agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
"Although the author of Luke is generally considered to be anonymous, there is some suggestion that the author of Luke also wrote the book of Acts."
"Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke"The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness..." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
Seems authorship is a little vague. Even the scholars aren't sure.
So? If anything this would prove accuracy, otherwise the writings would have never made it public, as Mathew, Mark, Luke, John and whoever else would have made it known that the writings were false.
My point was not the accuracy of the Gospels, it was that "The Gospel According to [name]" may not have been written by the man who's name is on it. Nothing was said about the veracity of the writing. Ghostwriting is an approved vehicle for authorship. It's better to put someone's name as an author credibility rather than naming it "The …