It would not surprise me in the least if information came to light about the true nature of Jesus, his putative wife and his philosophy. Most of these chains of transmission, both through bloodlines and teachers, do have documented records.
Really? Then why, after nearly three decades since HBHG was published and dozens (if not hundreds) of copycat works on the topic, have so many authors and their fans parrotted this baseless claim and yet failed to ever produce one single documented record? In fact, they seem to go to great lengths to cast doubts on the veracity of historical records. Why do you suppose that is?
OK, there are several questions in there:
1] Why have so many authors and their fans parroted a baseless claim?
I have not read any of these except for the Holy Blood and Holy Grail books and the lightweight da Vinci Code novel. I have no personal clue as to whether it is true that Jesus was married to MM.
And yet you seem comfortable enough stating that there are documented records. Interesting.
2] Why have they not produced one single documented record?
Because they do not know of one. It seems that there may be some tentative evidence that may add up to something more concrete, or not, as the case may be.
But you've just written, seemingly with some degree of certainty, that such records do exist. Not having seen them yourself, where might you have heard that such records exist except from the same authors you've just stated "do not know of" them?
I am not convinced that marital evidence will change many people's views about Xtianity if proof were offered. How many Xtians have read any of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
How many times is Jesus mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls? They're not about Christianity, they're about a strain of ascetic Judaism.
Are there first-hand historical records that say Jesus was not married? Or is it an assumption because no biblical references says he actually was?
Was the fact expunged by the church because it would emphasise the human nature of Jesus if he were to have been married? I really don't know.
So they leave in all the other human traits like sin, anger, hunger, thirst, temptation, pain, and physical death, but take out all references to marriage because only the latter might make him seem too "human"...? They leave in scriptural references to Jesus having been "fully God and fully man", and persecute "heretics" like the Cathars for daring to suggest that Jesus was pure spirit and never human, because they wanted to hide
the human element? Don't you think that's just a bit of a stretch? There are no direct or indirect references in the Gospels to indicate whether Jesus did or did not have a wife. There are also no direct or indirect references to Jesus having a dental degree, but should we assume he did when and if it fits nicely into someone's new theory?
I said I would not be surprised if information came to light.
What you said was that you would not be surprised if information regarding the "true" nature of Jesus, his philosophy, and his "putative" wife came to light because there are "documented records". So, where are these records?
Those who may have such evidence today in the form of tangible ancient records, whose organisations certainly span the necessary timeframe, do not set their material up as an information service for the general public. That is not their core business and providing such information is a distraction from it.
How would you be in a position to know the workings or the purpose of organizations that "may" have tangible ancient records after admitting you don't even know if such records exist?
An analogy might be with a drowning man. A man with a lifebelt appears. Having conversations with him about lifebelts, such as:
Can lifebelts really save people?
Which ones work better?
Whose belt is it?
Who made it and where?
Is there a coded reference to a lifebelt in a Poussin painting?
Who made the first one?
Where did the other ones from the factory go to?
...all distract from the immediate fact that a man is drowning, there is a lifebelt within reach and the job in hand is to save a life.
Exactly - distraction
To those in a real dynamic (spiritual or philosophical rather than academic) teaching situation today they are engaged in rare and precious life-saving exercises, not historical discussions.
True - because they can't fake their way through historical discussions.