Are there writings about the Assumption of Mary before 6th century

[Pythagoras]

Some Protestants say that there are no historical evidences/writings before the sixth century about the Assumption of Mary, hence they say it was a new doctrine, any knowledge/sources or comments?

St. Gregory lived in the sixth century, while St John Damascene belongs to the eight. Thus for several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the **church fathers **of the bodily assumption of Mary. Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others Church Fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end.[3]

 

[NotWorthy]

The earliest known written reference to the Assumption can be found in the Greek text De Obitu S. Dominae, which dates to the fourth or fifth century but has been attributed to St. John himself.

Since this is the earliest KNOWN written reference, it very well could have been written earlier, but a lot of our writings have been destroyed. Another piece of evidence is that nobody questioned this “fact” at the time of this writing. This indicates, or at least points to, the assumption (bad pun?) that the Early Church already believed in Mary’s Assumption at the time of this writing.
The Assumption of Mary has also been celebrated since early times with a Feast day. We do not know exactly where or when this celebration first occurred, but according to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529) it was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500, probably in August. It has been celebrated at other times of the year in various places, however, such as in Egypt and Arabia, where it was observed in January. By 700 it was one of the principle feasts in Rome, and was a Holy Day of Obligation.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end >>

Actually St. Epiphanius of Salamis (writing in his “Panarion” about 370-390 AD) refers to the assumption:

“Say she died a natural death. In that case she fell asleep in glory, and departed in purity and received the crown of her virginity. Or say she was slain with the sword according to Simeon’s prophecy. There her glory is with the martyrs, and she through whom the divine light shone upon the world is in the place of bliss with her sacred body. Or say she left this world without dying for God can do what He wills. Then she was simply transferred to eternal glory.” (Haer. 79, 11).

Fr. Mateo in Refuting the Attack on Mary deflects the historical objection by saying we need to argue this theologically: since (or IF) Mary was sinless, her body would not see corruption, so she was assumed at death, body and soul.

Pius XII says in the definition for the Assumption: “…this truth which is 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…Various testimonies, indications and signs of this common belief of the Church are evident from remote times down through the course of the centuries…”

But he does not get explicit about the earliest references. He does mention later Fathers and Doctors: St. John Damascene, St. Germanus of Constantinople, Amadeus [bishop of Lausarme], St. Anthony of Padua, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernardine of Siena, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis of Sales, St. Alphonsus, St. Peter Canisius.

Phil P