The implications are that there seems to be proof of a faith tradition in the first millenium AD in which Jesus is married. It doesn't actually say anything about the historical Jesus, a subject about which we have very little firm information despite a truly massive amount of ink being wasted on it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "credible historians". Historical opinion is diverse, and a married Jesus is almost certainly not a consensus opinion, but I'm sure it's been argued, and argued well.

I presume you raise it because there are some recent articles about it in Harvard Theological Review.

The question about authenticity really relates to the fragment discovered, it has very little to do with actual historical Jesus studies. THe main proponent of the fragment being genuine and not a forgery is Prof King. She accepts the carbon-dating by Tuross and that would put it into the 8th century, which is into the Islamic period.

Alternate Carbon dating in a report by Hodgins gave results of 405-350 BC and/or 397-209 BC alongside another test giving 659-969 AD. Clearly there are some issues with the Carbon dating.

As far as I know, no historian is making a claim about Jesus being married. Only "the media".

The Gospels makes no mention of Jesus being married. They don't explicitly state that he was unmarried either though, so basically we have no way of knowing. As far as I know, no credible historians have argued that we have any kind of evidence pointing to him being married.

The papyrus is far to late to tell us anything about the historical Jesus. It tells us something about later beliefs regarding Jesus.