This is like the supposed “lost tomb of Jesus” that had the names of “Jesus son of Joseph”, “Mary”, “Matthew” carved in stone ossuaries. There was no proof that the names were the names of the Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament, or that any of the other names had anything to do with his family or disciples. It was “assumed” that they were.
Same with this parchment. If it is an authentic piece of parchment from the 1st century, or the 2nd century or 3rd century - that’s all it is - an “authentic” piece of parchment. We don’t know if the Jesus mentioned on the parchment has anything to do with the Jesus of the New Testament. And, if it is speaking of the Jesus of the New Testament, does that mean that what is written on the parchment is true? We don’t even have a context to see what the fragment is referring to.
I love how people who want to trash the New Testament manuscripts flippantly disavow the authenticity or trustworthiness of the content of those documents, yet rush to accept non-canonical documents as being trustworthy and beyond question.
Iirc, the parchment in question was dated to the 9th or 10th Century AD.
So all it really proves is that someone from that time period was considering that Jesus may have been married. Nothing more, nothing less.
Facts and common sense say that if this is truly “evidence” of Jesus being married, and represented knowledge that had persisted for nearly 1000 years, there would be a heck of a lot of other evidence out there that Jesus was married as well.
However, this IS an important document, but is only relevant to how Christ was perceived and interpreted in the 8th-9th centuries.