Yes, and that is pure speculation or deliberate insinuation on the part of the author, or possibly a projection by others since both Jesus and Mary were very common names. But you understand my point: We don't have to believe the author on the identity of the protagonists, but we can deduce that there were hairdressers at that time, since he is mentioning that occupation casually. Likewise, from the passages Dr. Marhsall brings into focus we conclude that there were women occupied in weaving, maiking incense and baking, at the temple. I am a bit tired repeating this point; if it is still not clear perhaps you should ask someone to explain it to you.
whether there were temple virgins at the door of the tabernacle.
Right, and unless someone took care to make sure women at the door of the tabernacle were all married, the women making the veil etc. were likewise all married whereas the virgins shut up were away from the tabernacle, the question, like that about the nature of the animal with columnar legs and floppy ears, is answered in the positive.
sources like the Talmud and visions and apocrypha
The visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich I shouldn't even have quoted, and none of my post relied on that. The rest, whatever your opinion is on the canonicity of the Book of Maccabees, are historical period evidence, and of course, Exodus 38:8 and Samuel 2:22 are without dispute canonical. Again, if you have a difficulty understanding this simple proposition, maybe you should ask someone you trust for cognitive help.
Where does the reading of 2 Macc. that Marshall gave come from? Do you know? Is it part of the LXX? Do you know? What Greek manuscripts (if any) is Marshall's reading found in since you used the term “original”?
If you're going to rely on 2 Macc. as a source then surely you would know just as surely as the Greek text you posted does NOT agree with Marshall's quote.
If you need “cognitive help” get back to me.