I'm sure it is true that the final version of the Bible was designed to serve perceived needs at the time. Take all the stuff in Luke proving that Joseph was directly descended from David when, if you believe, Joseph had no role in the conception of Jesus.
Similar things happened in British history. Did you watch 'Ian Hislop's Olden Days'? He explained how both King Arthur and King Alfred were created to serve contemporary needs.
I'm sure there is already some entrepreneurial American developing his business plan for 'The Church of Our Lord's Spouse'.
And, of course, some people will latch onto the idea of Jesus being married as 'proof' that God abhors equal marriage.
Fruit Bat /\0/\ - I think that you'll find that most modern scholars agree that Jesus existed see Historicity of Jesus.
The greatest "story" is the Resurrection. There are many on here that would argue that it is a fable and others that believe it. Belief is the main point and you cannot prove belief in written or even verbal debate. I happen to believe it but I suspect that I will be called deluded.
I'm not worried about whether Jesus was married or not. Women played a central role in the early Christian Church and their role was in may instances "air brushed" out to conform with a male dominated society.
There are other "Gospels" that were omitted from the Bible as it was established.
fourm member - I agree that the Bible isn't an exact documentary record. When it was put together some documents were omitted. If the Bible was meant to be an exact record (and that could be debated for some time with fundamentalists saying it is and others stating that it is open to interpretation) then omission could be construed as re-writing history. But there were theological decisions made. Some probably rightly and perhaps some errors too.