Habakkuk's Assumption Mentioned While Mary's Isn't

I've often discussed how much attention figures like Enoch, Elijah, Jesus, and Paul get in scripture and in the early extrabiblical sources because of being bodily assumed to heaven or carried up in a supernatural manner in some other context. See here, for example, among many other relevant posts in our archives.

One of the most striking examples I've cited is the account of Habakkuk being supernaturally transported from Israel to Babylon in an Apocryphal addition to the book of Daniel, Daniel 14:32-38. In an earlier post, I noted how significant it is that Cyril of Jerusalem, for example, wrote about the assumptions or assumption-like experiences of so many figures, even an example as insignificant as the passage about Habakkuk in an Apocryphal document, yet said nothing of an assumption of Mary.

There's another example of this kind of thing in Chromatius of Aquileia. As far as I know, he never advocated the assumption of Mary anywhere in his writings. Yet, he does discuss the transporting of Habakkuk to Babylon (Thomas Scheck, trans., Chromatius Of Aquileia: Sermons And Tractates On Matthew [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 2018], approximate Kindle location 4741). The context Chromatius is addressing is God's provision of food for his people, such as God's provision for Daniel through Habakkuk. I wouldn't expect Mary to be mentioned in that context, even if Chromatius believed in her assumption. My point isn't that Mary should have been mentioned by Chromatius in that passage if he believed in her assumption. Rather, my point is that even something as insignificant as the material on Habakkuk in the Apocrypha gets mentioned sometimes, whereas the assumption of Mary keeps going conspicuously unmentioned, even when people are addressing issues that are highly relevant (assumptions, resurrections, people who are currently in heaven in an embodied state, etc.).