You are "remembering" from "Scripture" what does not exist in Scripture, but which is from apocryphal Gospel of James, one of many fake pseudonymous (it lies about being written by James) wannabe gospels, a fantasy which even Catholicism rejects as Scripture despite her idolatrous hyper-"hyperdulia" of their Mary.
Aquinas, responding to the the Protevangelium of James teaching that that midwives were present at Christ's birth, states, "Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings." (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4035.htm)
Of course, Aquinas does so because he want to exclude Mary from suffering pain during childbirth, which would mean she was a sinner, which exceeding exception to the norm the Holy Spirit would characteristically, state, as He did with much less notable exceptions to the norm.
There was no 90 year old (which is only in your memory) axe swinging, building contractor, journeying Joseph, or vestal virgin Mary in the temple, but what you are basically remembering is from the Protevangelium of James/Gospel of James, a
"pseudepigraphal (noncanonical and unauthentic) work written about the mid-2nd century ad [possibly composed in Egypt] to enhance the role of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Christian tradition. TThe story of Mary’s childhood as given in the Protevangelium has no parallel in the New Testament, and reference to a nine-year stay in the Temple of Jerusalem contradicts Jewish customs. - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Protevangelium-of-James
The majority of scholars argue for a non-Jewish milieu given the author’s apparent ignorance of Palestinian geography (e.g., Joseph prepares to depart from Bethlehem to Judea, 21:1) and aspects of Judaism (e.g., Mary’s residency in the Temple and Joachim’s marginalization for childlessness are both suspect, and Mary is said to be of the “tribe of David”). However, the author has sufficient knowledge of the Septuagint to borrow phrares and use its characters as models for Anna and Joachim and, unlike the majority of early Christian writers, he does not portray Jewish leaders negatively. - http://www.tonyburke.ca/wp-content/uploads/dictionary-entry-samples.doc
And besides the fanciful additions, you have real contradictions btwn this and the gospel accounts, as detailed by Bodie Hodge of answersingenesis.org:
Table of some contradictions between The Protoevangelium of James and the Bible:
| Protoevangelium of James4 | The Bible | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gabriel is called an archangel (Chapter 9:22), which was a common designation for Gabriel in apocryphal literature written after the first century. (For example, see Revelation of Paul, The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary, and The Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God.) | The Bible never identifies Gabriel as an archangel, but Michael is described as an archangel in Jude 1:9. The idea of Gabriel as an archangel seems to be a misconception that began in the second century. | |
| 2 | Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (Chapter 9:12).5 [Another translation of this work is available at http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/protevan.htm. Mary’s reply is rendered differently in this version, in which she replied, “What! By the living God, shall I conceive and bring forth as all other women do?” The angel responded, “Not so, O Mary, but the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” This version makes better sense, since the angel corrects her thinking that this would occur via natural means. Walker’s translation (Alexander Walker, Esq., in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers,) makes little sense.] | Luke 1:34 states, “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’” | |
| 3 | Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (Chapter 16:3). | Concerning John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states, “So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” It was Joseph, Mary, and Jesus who fled from Bethlehem because of Herod (Matthew 2:13–15). | |
| 4 | Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (Chapters 12:11–14:31). | Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David, according to Luke 2:4, 11 and Matthew 2:1. | |
| 5 | The angel of the Lord, when speaking to Joseph in a dream, said to take Mary but does not mention having her as a wife. The priest chastised Joseph and accused him for taking Mary as a wife secretly by the priest. Joseph takes her home but is reluctant to call her his wife when they go to Bethlehem (Chapters 10:17–18, 11:14, 12:2–3). | Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was already Mary’s husband (they were betrothed) before the angel visited him in a dream. Matthew 1:24 points out that after the angel visited Joseph, he kept her as his wife. | |
| 6 | Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (Chapter 16:2). | Mary and Joseph were warned of Herod’s plot by an angel, and they fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–14). | |
| 7 | Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (Chapter 21:1–2). | Wise men came to Jerusalem to inquire where the child king was (Matthew 2:1). | https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/is-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-a-biblical-view/ Some invoke certain statements from the the Babylonian Talmud (with its superstitions and fables) and or the apocryphal 2 Maccabees for support of temple virgins, neither of which are reliable sources as to what is Scriptural, nor does it make Mary a temple virgin, a vow which would require her father's assent. |
Excellent review and summary as to why the Protevangelium of James that so many catholics hang their hat on is to be rejected.
The main point being: The ages given for both Mary and Joseph. What's needed is evidence that contradicts those "specific" ages given, something I see as quite striking in itself, otherwise, we're fully aware of the controversy surrounding these texts, and what you've cut and pasted offers nothing toward the above (i.e. the relative ages of Mary and Joseph), other than your attempt to further muddy the waters, that, and your need to spout off.
Upstream, there is mention of texts that support Yeshua's siblings were in fact from Joseph's previous wife. So there is perhaps possible collaboration of Joseph being a bit older than Mary.