John:
Any “snort” inferred from my post (which of course would be extratextual but by Brownian standards would therefore presumptively exist) would be aimed at those readers who forget The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. I’ve encountered some who take his presentation of history as (pardon the pun) the gospel truth. Those concerns you cite upon which the gospel accounts are silent are naturally all appropriate topics for works of theology, philosophy, history, &c., and fiction.
The existence of a possibility of Jesus’ marriage is not itself proof of it, not even strictly ontologically, since you can simultaneously envision Jesus married or unmarried. I cannot see how the existence of a bachelor Jesus could imply marriage is sinful. While not having researched the topic, I would hazard that one reason for the theological objection to the idea of a married Jesus would be because the Scriptures are silent on the subject in conjunction with the Revelation 22:18-19 warning against adding to the Scriptures. (If I may, such objection would be somewhat similar to friends of the Constitution objecting to federalizing ideas “left unattended to,” to borrow a phrase, in the Constitution, given the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.) Although, as I think about it, perhaps the idea expressed in Ephesians 5:26-32 and elsewhere that Christ’s bride will be the Church may also lend theological heft in favor of the unmarried Jesus.
