An Assumption Of Habakkuk, But No Assumption Of Mary

I've often made the point that many sources in the early centuries of Christianity discuss bodily assumptions, people who never died, people who were resurrected, and other topics relevant to an assumption of Mary without mentioning her. See here for a list of examples. That list is far from exhaustive. Later in this post, I'll be discussing some of the many other examples that could be mentioned. The cumulative effect of these examples has to be kept in mind, since Catholics (and others who agree with them or sympathize with them on this issue) can keep objecting to individual passages that are cited or a subset of the overall evidence. There's some evidential significance to the larger pattern of the absence of an assumption of Mary and related concepts while so much other material of the same or a similar nature keeps getting mentioned.

My sense is that the assumptions and similar events that are most often discussed are the ones involving Enoch, Elijah, Jesus, and Paul (his being taken up to heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4). And when resurrections are discussed (Mary would have been resurrected before her assumption if she died), examples like the individuals Elijah raised from the dead, Jesus, the people Jesus raised in the gospels, and the individuals raised by the apostles in Acts often come up, but Mary is never mentioned. It's striking that relatively minor figures keep getting discussed in these contexts without any discussion of Mary.

Some things that have to be kept in mind when considering all of this evidence are how important Catholics claim Mary is, how important they claim the early Christians thought she was, and how important Catholics claim Mary's assumption is. They claim Mary is God's greatest creation, superior to all angels and other humans, the mother of the church, and so on. Pope Pius XII claimed that Mary's assumption is a belief "based on the Sacred Writings, which is thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful, which has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times" (Munificentissimus Deus, 41). He refers to the assumption as "a matter of such great moment and of such importance" (11) and claims that the arguments for the doctrine are so good that it "seems impossible" (38) to avoid the conclusion that Mary was bodily assumed. From a Catholic perspective, it would make sense for Jesus' ascension to get discussed more than Mary's assumption, since Jesus is superior to Mary. But why is it that among the Christians of the earliest centuries, Enoch, Elijah, and Paul get so much attention while Mary gets none (in this context), even while such minor assumptions (or similar events) as those of Moses, Habakkuk, and the witnesses of Revelation 11 get mentioned? Why do so many resurrected individuals other than Mary keep getting mentioned, whereas nobody refers to a resurrection of Mary (if Mary died before her supposed assumption, which seems to be the view of the large majority of Catholics who have given the subject significant consideration)?

An example of this kind of contrast is found in Cyril of Jerusalem:

For when they speak against the ascension of the Saviour, as being impossible, remember the account of the carrying away of Habakkuk: for if Habakkuk was transported by an Angel, being carried by the hair of his head, much rather was the Lord of both Prophets and Angels, able by His own power to make His ascent into the Heavens on a cloud from the Mount of Olives. Wonders like this thou mayest call to mind, but reserve the preeminence for the Lord, the Worker of wonders; for the others were borne up, but He bears up all things. Remember that Enoch was translated; but Jesus ascended: remember what was said yesterday concerning Elias, that Elias was taken up in a chariot of fire; but that 'the chariots of' Christ 'are ten thousand-fold even thousands upon thousands': and that Elias was taken up, towards the east of Jordan; but that Christ ascended at the east of the brook Cedron: and that Elias went 'as into heaven'; but Jesus, into heaven: and that Elias said that a double portion in the Holy Spirit should be given to his holy disciple; but that Christ granted to His own disciples so great enjoyment of the grace of the Holy Ghost, as not only to have It in themselves, but also, by the laying on of their hands, to impart the fellowship of It to them who believed.

And when thou hast thus wrestled against the Jews,—when thou hast worsted them by parallel instances, then come further to the pre-eminence of the Saviour's glory; namely, that they were the servants, but He the Son of God. And thus thou wilt be reminded of His pre-eminence, by the thought that a servant of Christ was caught up to the third heaven. For if Elias attained as far as the first heaven, but Paul as far as the third, the latter, therefore, has obtained a more honourable dignity. Be not ashamed of thine Apostles; they are not inferior to Moses, nor second to the Prophets; but they are noble among the noble, yea, nobler still. For Elias truly was taken up into heaven; but Peter has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, having received the words, 'Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven'. Elias was taken up only to heaven; but Paul both into 'heaven', and into 'paradise' (for it behoved the disciples of Jesus to receive more manifold grace), and 'heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for man to utter'. But Paul came down again from above, not because he was unworthy to abide in the third heaven, but in order that after having enjoyed things above man's reach, and descended in honour, and having preached Christ, and died for His sake, he might receive also the crown of martyrdom. But I pass over the other parts of this argument, of which I spoke yesterday in the Lord's-day congregation; for with understanding hearers, a mere reminder is sufficient for instruction.

(Catechetical Lectures, 14:25-26)

Cyril mentions Jesus, Habakkuk, Enoch, Elijah, and Paul, but not Mary. He's getting the example of Habakkuk from Bel And The Dragon, an account that was added to the book of Daniel after Daniel's time. In Bel And The Dragon, there's a reference to an angel transporting Habakkuk from Israel to Babylon. Notice, also, that Cyril says, regarding Paul's being taken up to heaven in 2 Corinthians 12, "for it behoved the disciples of Jesus to receive more manifold grace [than Elijah]". If Mary's assumption would have illustrated that point even more than Paul's, why does Cyril mention Paul while saying nothing of Mary?

Eusebius, like his predecessor Luke in the book of Acts, says nothing of an assumption of Mary while discussing the history of the church. But Eusebius did include something he came across in Dionysius of Alexandria regarding what happened to a bishop and his wife:

"Chaeremon, who was very old, was bishop of the city called Nilus. He fled with his wife to the Arabian mountain and did not return. And though the brethren searched diligently they could not find either them or their bodies." (Church History, 6:42:3)

Though Chaeremon and his wife were minor figures in church history, both Dionysius and Eusebius found those events surrounding the end of their lives significant and wrote about them. You'd think Dionysius and Eusebius would have mentioned an assumption of Mary if they'd thought such an event occurred. Why do such minor figures as Habakkuk and Chaeremon and his wife keep getting mentioned in these contexts while Mary doesn't? It would make sense for Mary to sometimes not be mentioned (because she's occasionally forgotten, she's left out due to space constraints, etc.). You could make a significant argument for Mary's assumption, at least an argument for a belief in her assumption among some sources, if she was sometimes mentioned in these contexts and sometimes wasn't. But why would she not be mentioned at all?

And as I've documented elsewhere, we find sources denying that Mary was assumed for hundreds of years prior to the Reformation. It's not just that the belief is absent early on. It's also denied by some sources in later pre-Reformation centuries, even after it starts circulating.