I fully agree that Joseph was not rich. That is shown by the sacrifice of the doves after Jesus is born. And the Protoevangelium does indeed say that Mary's family was wealthy. I was alluding to the arguments of some others here that one reason for the marriage was so that Joseph could take care of Mary financially. If anything, the opposite would have been true. BTW, if Joseph was so old, (too old to have sex, apparently ) what was Mary supposed to do to protect her virginity after he died? It doesn't seem like much of a plan to me if he already had one foot in the grave.
What verse is suppressed as a result of saying Mary was ever-virgin? The explanation given are perfectly acceptable, ancient, and do not damage the Scriptures.
The same ones we are talking about in Matt. 13. Those verses are destroyed in their meaning in order to support the Protoevangelium, a work judged unworthy of inclusion in the Bible. The Protoevangelium and the text of the scripture CANNOT both be true, therefore one side must be suppressed. As is always the case, the Bible takes a back seat to Tradition. Not only that, this suppression also throws into potential doubt the authorship of up to two books in the NT, James and Jude. So this is no small matter to protect an extra-scriptural work.
Enough said... It appears nothing I said or will say will convince you otherwise.
Regards