Bart, are you suggesting in v.68 that it explicitly states that Jesus was married?

There are two passages of the Gospel of Philip that figure prominently in The Da Vinci Code. One I have already mentioned:
Leigh Teabing claims that the Aramaic word for "companion" really meant "spouse", and uses this to show that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. But as we have seen, the text is written not in Aramaic but in Coptic, and the word for "companion" (it's a Greek loanword, [greek word]) in fact means not "spouse" but "companion", "friend", or "associate".
   The other passage is even more intriguing, but there is a problem with it that I should mention before quoting it. The manuscript that contains the Gospel of Philip is worn in places, having a number of holes where the words are, therefore, missing. This has affected one passage in particular:
Obviously Christ is kissing Mary somewhere -- but where is impossible to say.  The text continues on in a vein similar to what can be found in the Gospel of Mary, involving a dispute among the male disciples about why Jesus loves Mary more than them:

Is there any historical truth in any of these assertions about Jesus and Mary, or are they simply part of the literary fiction of The Da Vinci Code? The only way to get to the bottom of the problem is to ask a more basic question: how do we know anything about the historical Jesus?
   As we saw in the last chapter, our only recourse for knowing something about Jesus, or about anyone else in the past, is to consider our sources of information. Our principle sources for Jesus, as we have seen, are the Gospels of the New Testament, and possibly a few noncanonical Gospel accounts that may also provide useful information about his life. But these sources cannot be used uncritically, for, as we have seen, even our earliest sources (for example, Mark and the hypothetical document Q) were written decades after the events they describe and were based on oral traditions that had been in circulation year after year among people who modified the stories they told and retold about Jesus'life. This means that all our sources need to be taken with a grain of salt. We need to approach them cautiously, carefully, and methodically if we are to extract historically reliable information about them, for what we are after is not the changed account of Jesus' life but the original information: what Jesus really said, did, and experienced in his life.
   How can we learn such information, so as to evaluate the claims made by the likes of Leigh Teabing or Robert Langdon (or Dan Brown, or anyone else who says anything about the historical Jesus)? There are in fact scholars who have devoted their entire lives to dealing with this problem of how to know what really happened in the life of Jesus. These are highly trained scholars of the ancient world who read all the sources in their original languages (Greek, Aramaic, Latin, etc.), are familiar with every trace of a mention of Jesus in our ancient accounts, and have devised methods for sifting through all the material in order to determine what is historically reliable and what is not. The vast bulk of the scholarship produced by these experts is far from scintillating -- it is hard-hitting, rigorous, detailed, highly nuanced stuff, of use to, and intrest to, mostly other scholars in the field. But the conclusions that scholars have reached can in fact be fascinating to a nonexpert audience. What I will try to do here is to put the methods scholars have devised for reconstructing the life of Jesus in simple and accessible terms, with the understanding that there has been a serious amount of blood, sweat, and sheer hard work lying behind this rather simple presentation.

Leigh Teabing claims that the Aramaic word for "companion" really meant "spouse", and uses this to show that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. But as we have seen, the text is written not in Aramaic but in Coptic, and the word for "companion" (it's a Greek loanword, [greek word]) in fact means not "spouse" but "companion", "friend", or "associate".

Further, the Document Q Gospels (Synoptic GOspels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) are the least reliable gospels, whereas the Gospel of John is purported to have been written by a witness to the events (John) and is therefore the most reliable.

They are saying it is borrowed from Greek, yet it is clear that the Aramaic equivalent was for spouse.  At the same time, the writers were writing in Coptic but understood ARamaic.  So, for example, if I use a Spanish word to mean "wife" when it really doesn't have the same connotation as English . . .

(3)  The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were composed during and after the revolt of AD 66-74, when Judaism effectively ceased to exist as an organized social, political and military force.
(4)  Mark was composed during or immediately after the revolt (except for its treatment of the Resurrection, which is a later and spurious addition).  Mark was not an original disciple, but he appears to have come from Jerusalem.  He seems to have been a companion of St. Paul.  His Gospel (as Clement of Alexandria states) was composed in Rome and addressed to a Greco-Roman audience.  At the time it was written, the Jews were in open revolt and thousands were being crucified for rebellion against Rome.  In order for his Gospel to survive, Mark had to present it in a way that was not anti-Rome.  (He would have had to exonerate Rome from Jesus' death and not portray Jesus as a political figure.)
(5)  Luke is dated at AD 80.  Luke was a Greek doctor who composed his work for a high ranking Roman official at Caesarea, the Roman capital of Palestine.
(6)  Matthew was composed in AD 85.  More than half of it was derived directly from Mark's gospel, although it was originally prepared in Greek and reflects specific Greek characteristics.  The author appears to be a Jew (possibly a refugee from Palestine).  This is not the same as Jesus' disciple named "Matthew," who would have lived much earlier and likely would have known only Aramaic.
(7)  The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are known as the "Synaptic Gospels," meaning that they see "eye to eye" or "with one eye."  They are enough alike that it is believed they derived from the same source (either oral tradition or some documents subsequently lost).
(8)  Nothing is known about the author of the Fourth Gospel (John).  We don't even know if the author's name was John.  Except for John the Baptist, it never mentions John, and its attribution to a man named "John" is due to later tradition.  It was composed about 100AD around the Greek city of Ephesus.
(9)  The fourth Gospel is quite distinctive.  There is no nativity scene or description of Jesus' birth.  The opening is also quite Gnostic in nature.  Unlike the others (which are generally assumed to be second or third hand accounts primarily focused on Galilee), John dwells on Judea and Jerusalem around the end of Jesus' ministry.  It also contains specific episodes and stories not in the others (such as the wedding at Cana, Nicodemus, and the like).  Based on these types of factors, scholars generally agree that John is the most reliable and historically accurate of any of the Gospels.  It draws more upon the traditions, first hand topographical knowledge prior to the 66AD revolt, and chronological framework that make it appear very authentic. (However, the scholars also agree that this Gospel also has been the subject to "doctoring, editing, expurgation and revision.")