[Bohemund]

What is so unreasonable about the Christ being married? He was a rabbi, and would have been bound to “go forth and multiply”.

Well, first off, in 1st Century Palestine, there were no "rabbis" as we currently understand them (as leaders of synagogues, etc). But that's neither here not there.

There is nothing unreasonable about the statement that any given man in 1st Century Palestine was likely to be married. It is unreasonable, though, to say that Jesus Christ, the best-attested personage from antiquity, whose family was venerated to the third or fourth generation, would have had a wife that nobody knew about.

It is equally unreasonable to say that the Son of God, who overturned the old order, would be bound by social conventions.

[R. Scott]

Well, first off, in 1st Century Palestine, there were no "rabbis" as we currently understand them (as leaders of synagogues, etc).

No, back then there were Jewish priests. The Christ was a religious leader, and (unless my various translations of the Holy Bible are in error) He was refered to as “rabbi”.

…would have had a wife that nobody knew about.

Wives had little status at the time, and would not have been germane to the message.

It is equally unreasonable to say that the Son of God, who overturned the old order, would be bound by social conventions.

He did amend a few of the Old Testament dictates – an eye for an eye is a good example – but it can hardly be said that He “overturned the old order”. He appeared to be an observant Jew. The old order was overturned much later when the Word was spread to the Gentiles and non-Jews took over.