If theists understood "evidence"

[RoadRunner79]

Read the footnote:

This view is based on three arguments: (a) the setting reflects the final separation of Church and Synagogue, about 85 AD; (b) it reflects the capture of Rome and destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD; © it uses Mark, usually dated around 70 AD, as a source. (See R.T France (2007), "The Gospel of Matthew", p. 18.) France himself is not convinced by the majority – see his Commentary, pp. 18–19.

So it seems like nothing substantial to go against the views of those who where much closer to the events (as well as question begging).  I'm guessing that the seperation of Church and Synagogue is an interpretation; can it be interpreted in other ways, that don't conflict?

I would also add a question of what exactly constitutes a majority of scholars here.   It seems that this phrase is often thrown around, and at times on competing ideas.   Are you talking 99% or 49%-51%?   It seems that the opinions in such scholarly circles sway often without evidence or reason but more the mood of academia in regards to Christianity.  So yes.... I'm going to ask why, and for more than just an appeal to authority.