matthews gospel in 73 a.d.?

Here is an example showing how John started in Aramaic and was translated into greek.Where a word in the Aramaic may possibly be correctly translated
several ways it turns up in these different ways in various greek
manuscripts.
An example would be John 3:15
So that everyone who believes in Him not will perish.
The word translated here as "in him" may be translated 'in Him", "on
Him", "into him" or perhaps "through him".
All the Aramaic read the same but when it comes to the greek.The following Greek manuscripts translate it "In Him": p75, B, W, 083
0113The following translate it "On Him": p63vid, p66, A, LAnd the following translate it "Into Him": S, K, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi,
086, f1, f13, 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1010, 1241

There's plenty of variatiosn in the early manuscripts.
If you want to use such minor variations as evidence of Aramaic originals you need to show that they are not plausible variations of the Greek.
Or better yet, find direct evidence of an early Aramaic manuscript of John. We have a Papyrus fragment of John from the first half of the 2nd Century AD (The Rylands Papyrus p52). Perhaps significantly the Egerton Gospel also from the first half of the 2nd Century, showing similarities to John and found in Syria is also written in Greek.

This will probably never be done but there is a good reason for it.
Groups such as the assyrian Church of the East who use thre peshitta (eastern not western) have different attitude towards copies of the scriptures than we do today.
When their old copies became frayed or damaged they were apparently copied and destroyed rather than kept in a tattered condition.
The revered these writings in a way perhaps not understood by us today in the west.

Which now begs the question of why we have a Gospel fragment from Syria written in Greek - as well as very old copies of the Peshitta.The fact is that you need better evidence than you have offered and better arguments than insisting that you need to look at the Peshitta to compare Greek texts!

My argument is that anyone who assumes that the NT was written in greek without examining the peshitta and possible relationships to variuous greek texts has not done their homework properly.Does this seem unreasonable to you?