Is the mainstream scholarly view that the Gospels are anonymous works?

The skeptic, Matthew Wade Ferguson, writes the following at the infidels.org website: > The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, > written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, > after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, > redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a > narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the > faith of their communities. (sourced from here ) If one goggle searches, "historical reliability of the Gospels" an article in Wikipedia pops up which pretty much vindicates the skeptical view that mainstream scholars believe the Gospels are anonymous works. Is it really true that the traditional view of Christian apologists - i.e. that the New Testament was composed by either eyewitnesses are close associates of eyewitnesses of Jesus, is out of step with mainstream scholarship? Are there good reasons, in support of traditional Christianity, to doubt the doubts of the mainstream scholars on this question? And if so, what can be done to free up traditional Christianity from being subject to a type of “Babylonian captivity”?