That is not entirely true D-fendr. We have plenty of Jewish, Christian, Gnostic and other writings where the author identifies himself by name. Whether the author really was the person identified (autography) or not (pseudoepigraphy) or whether the name was invented (pseudonymous) is another issue.
Let me just say that pseudoepigraphy is quite common in ancient manuscripts and is the major reasoning for re-examning many traditionally held beliefs, with potentially unforeseeable if not disastrous consequences.
Consider for a moment the Book of Hebrews, which the the Western Church resisted almost as much as the Eastern Church resisted the the Book of Revelation. The only reason the book of Hebrews made it into the canon was the mistaken and falsely traditional belief that it was written by Apostle Paul!
Most Christians, of course, never get to know this and presume that the Bible was always the way it is now and that everything in it is authenticated by the Holy Spirit. Does "ignorance is bliss" somehow get any more blatant – and disappointing at the same time?
Although the author does not claim to be Paul, and is therefore not technically a pseudoepigraphical source, it was assumed to be his. And, despite the fact to the contrary, it is retained in the Bible as an inspired work although it is doubtful that it would have been had it not been assumed to be apostolic in origin.
We also have the examples of Revelation, of 1, 2, 3 John and 1 and 2 Peter, as true psuedoepigraphical sources which are retained as inspired simply because the Church decided they were written by the Apostles.
Append this to the anonymous Gospels, and what do you have left of the whole New Testament that's not somewhat doubtful? Not much. Jude, James, and seven out of 13 Pauline Epistles.
Jude has its own problems as far as being an apostolic work, and James was not accepted until the 3rd century. After all, James was not an apostle (even though Paul calls him that!), so what would compel the early Church to consider it 'inspired?' And out of 13 Pauline Epistles, the authorship of six is questioned or outright rejected by biblical scholars.
The authorship of the Gospels was accepted on faith as a matter of fact by all Christians until the 19th century, when serious textual analysis and other scientific evidence revealed much of that tradition to be in error.
Most Christians to this date do not know and have never been told that Gospels were written anonymously and that it was the Catholic Church, whose authority many Christians reject, that assigned the authorship to them at the beginning of the 3rd century.
Nevertheless, the factual anonymity of the Gospels is kept hushed as much as possible for obvious reasons, since they are central to Christian scripture and belief, and because it has been accepted blindly by all and continues to be peddled as fact even though it has been exposed as a tradition of men for more than a century now.
This only shows the tenacity of tradition. In fact, even the Protestants in general firmly believe, and Protestant communities continue to teach, that those were the actual authors, even though that belief has now been shown to be groundless, or at least seriously doubtful for quite some time.
Protestants like to say that if something isn't in the Bible it has no authority. Of course, just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean it was in the Bible all along. So, while the Bibles contain the authorship of the Gospels, that is something that wasn't always in those manuscripts, which means that what you are reading as the "word of God" may just be the words of men.
It never occurs to an average believer that someone could have added something into the Bible that wasn't there all along! Actually, the evidence to the contrary is stupendous and overwhelming!
My point is that now that we know the Gospels were originally not identified by the author, it is clear that all Protestant Bibles that have their Gospels identified as "The Gospel according to...[author's name]" are following the tradition of men.
I should have added that to my characterization. I might see, or remember, the history slightly differently. My memory is that putting the name "Joe" to something a writer, say "Fred," was penning was not considered wrong or theft if it was Joe's words that he was recording.
Authorship in general was not what we think of today. A writer could leave the name off or put the name of whose work or teaching he was telling. I believe it was considered worse to put one's own name to it in these cases.
I addition so much of these biblical and other works started as oral histories and we have "as told to as told to as told to" attributions required for complete accuracy.
I believe one of the main things the NT books have going for them in this regard is they are written much closer to the actual events than other writings - relatively of course.
I want to emphasize again that our view of "history" as a field or endeavor of writing is not much known at this time. We have to be somewhat careful reading our assumptions of biography or non-fiction back into these works.
You get a lot wrong from not knowing much about Protestant thought.
“The only reason the book of Hebrews made it into the canon was the mistaken and falsely traditional belief that it was written by Apostle Paul!”
Actually, it was known all along that Paul may not have written it. Many church fathers rejected Paul’s authorship, and Jerome was one. Luther thought it was Apollo, and it was one of several books he thought might not belong in the canon. Calvin rejected Pauline authorship. Others suspect Barnabas.
A dissenting view can be found here:
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=heb&chapter=000
It was not accepted because Paul wrote it.
“Most Christians to this date do not know and have never been told that Gospels were written anonymously and that it was the Catholic Church, whose authority many Christians reject, that assigned the authorship to them at the beginning of the 3rd century.”
Wrong again.Protestants know full well they are anonymous, and discuss possible authors in commentaries. Many of us have study bibles, with introductions to each book - and those almost always have a few sentences about authorship. The Sunday School curriculum put out via the SBC (but not used by all Baptists, since we are all independent) covers 1-2 books each quarter, and always includes a discussion on who wrote it.
“In fact, even the Protestants in general firmly believe, and Protestant communities continue to teach, that those were the actual authors, even though that belief has now been shown to be groundless, or at least seriously doubtful for quite some time.”
Actually, there are good arguments in their favor, as well as some against. Get a good commentary and read at your leisure.