Fine.

• Apostle Matthew would have been an illiterate Aramaic speaker. Yet the Gospel is written in educated Greek.

• Apostle Matthew would have been Jewish and at least somewhat familiar with the Hebrew Bible. And yet the Gospel only shows references to the Septuagint Bible. Check it yourself, not a single reference to Purim or the book of Easter.

• apostle Matthew would have recognized the poetic structure of Hebrew where the last sentence is repeated in slightly different ways. Example "and he went to the city. To the city he traveled". The Gospel writer didn't recognize it which is why he doubles stuff, hence Jesus riding a donkey and a colt.

• apostle Matthew would not have had access to the Gospel of Mark as it came out decades later in a totally different part of the empire. And yet the Gospel writer copied whole passages word for word out of Mark.

• apostle Matthew would have been about the same age as Jesus and from Galliee not the Bethlehem or Nazare and yet the Gospel writer claims to know about events going on prior to Jesus' birth including events with Mary and Joseph with no eyewitnesses

• apostle Matthew would only have had access at best to stories from Jesus while the Gospel writer shows stories that were retroconned. This is why you have a scene where Mary calls Joseph the father that later translations tried to surpress.

• apostle Matthew would have had no details about the events around the death of Jesus. How does he know what happens when Jesus is praying in private? How does he know about the trial with Pilot and what was said? And yet the Gospel writer did.

• apostle Matthew would have had little to know knowledge about Greco-Roman or Persian or Indian myths and yet the Gospel writer did and borrowed extensively.

• apostle Matthew would not have known Paul's letters and yet the Gospel writer references them.

• apostle Matthew would never have seen the events of 70 AD and yet foreshadowing of those events is found

• apostle Matthew would not have had any clue about the proto-Trinity debate of when Jesus was elevated and yet the Gospel writer takes a firm stand on that issue

• the whole attribution to him was made two hundred years later and not from even church tradition.

Let me know if you need more.