They would only be forgeries if the documents *claimed* authorship that was untrue. Since Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do not name themselves they can’t be described as forgeries. Period.

Whether you accept their witness or not is up to you. Scholars still refer to them as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John mainly because that is what they have been known as since antiquity—and tradition *is* strong since the 2nd & 3rd centuries. There is no overwhelming reason to assume tradition is wrong. But my faith has never been based on the authorship of Luke (or John, etc.)
Furthermore, even your favorite theologian, Bart Ehrman agrees most of the letters attributed to Paul are authentic—not forgeries. Frankly, Ehrman overstates his case.

There is no overwhelming reason to suspect that first Peter was not written by Peter (and there are as many scholars suggesting Peter is the author of 1 Peter—probably more than those who doubt the stated authorship). The author of Revelation does not claim to be the *Apostle* John—just John (a very common first century name)—also 1-3 John the author is not named, but I’m pretty certain even Ehrman would agree 1-3 John and Revelation (and likely the gospel—though not as conclusive) are written by the same person. So, again, not forgeries unless you can prove someone named John *didn’t* pen Revelation (which you can’t)—this is extreme hyperbole.

You only reference Bart Ehrman in your article. Ehrman was a fundamentalist who lost his “faith” at Princeton.

A classmate of Ehrman’s, Greg Boyd (PhD Princeton) wonders why Ehrman was so rocked by his time at Princeton —Boyd certainly doesn’t agree with Ehrman and Boyd is no fundamentalist. In fact, Boyd’s two volume academic work *The Crucifixion of the Warrior God* is a work of incredible scholarship.