Have you ever walked through an old cemetery and noticed how some graves are meticulously maintained while others lie forgotten? The carefully tended plots tell a story—someone remembers, someone cares, someone visits. But what would you think if you discovered that the most important person in your family's history had no grave at all? Not because they were forgotten, but because something extraordinary happened that made a traditional burial impossible?

This mystery lies at the heart of one of Christianity's most intriguing questions: What happened to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, at the end of her earthly life? The answer, preserved in ancient tradition and theological reflection, reveals not a borrowed pagan myth but a deeply Jewish understanding of God's faithfulness that speaks powerfully to our own hopes and fears about death, dignity, and destiny.

The tradition of Mary's assumption finds its earliest and strongest roots in Ephesus, where the Apostle John cared for Mary after Jesus entrusted her to him from the cross (John 19:26-27). This is no mere geographical footnote. John, the beloved disciple, would have been the guardian of Mary's memory and the primary witness to her final days.

To really understand the Jewish roots of Mary's assumption and her role as intercessor three Biblical "typologies" are affirmed in the Old and New Testament.

That is her role as...

The new Eve.

The new Ark.

The Queen Mother.  

Mary as the New Eve

The theological emphasis of Mary  as the New Eve is deeply rooted in the Johannine tradition. John’s Gospel presents Jesus as the Word made flesh, the one who conquers death and promises resurrection to those who believe. 

Recognize, that John begins his Gospel with language that recapitulates the Creation narrative of Genesis 1-3.  This is no mistake, and it's a major theme throughout his Gospel. 

John's deliberate use of language, especially in his Gospel, reinforces this connection. He twice records Jesus addressing Mary not as "Mother," but as "Woman" (John 2:4; 19:26). While some commentators try to suggest this is language of "respect," that doesn't take it far enough. It's true, calling Mary "woman" isn't at all like it sounds to modern ears.  If I ever called my mother "woman" it wouldn't go over well. If I called my wife "woman" I'd probably spend the night in the dog house.

But this isn't what's going on in the Gospel. It's not disrespectful in the least. However, it's not entirely accurate to claim this is a common term of "respect," either. In ancient texts, no man ever calls his mother "woman" as a term of respect. 

The answer depends on the aforementioned link between John's Gospel and the Genesis narrative.

This choice of word is a profound allusion back to Genesis 3, where Eve is predominantly referred to as "the woman" (using the same Greek word, γυνή, that the Septuagint uses).

By calling her "γυνή," Jesus places Mary in her archetypal role as the New Eve, the mother of the living, whose obedience would reverse the curse.

The case for this is further strengthened in the Johannine theological tradition, represented preeminently by St. Irenaeus of Lyons.  

John the Apostle taught Polycarp (c. 69–155 AD), the bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp taught Irenaeus (c. 130–202 AD), who became the bishop of Lyon.

Irenaeus himself wrote about this connection, emphasizing that he heard Polycarp's teachings firsthand and that Polycarp "always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles" and "conversed with many who had seen Christ." Irenaeus goes into some detail about Polycarp's teachings, and how he'd carefully taught him what he'd learned from John in Irenaeus's book Against Heresies (Book 3, Ch 3).   

Thus, it's not surprising that Irenaeus taught that Mary is the new Eve in no uncertain terms:  

"As Eve was seduced by the word of an angel... so Mary in her turn was given the good news by the word of an angel..." (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 22, Section 4).

"Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith." (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 22, Section 4).

"And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience." (Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 19, Section 1).

The significance of this title "γυνή," is further emphasized after the resurrection, when the Risen Christ first appears to Mary Magdalene. He calls her not by her name, but "γυνή" (John 20:15). In this moment, Jesus reveals that the New Adam's triumph is not just for Mary, the New Eve, but is now offered to all the faithful. Through the resurrection, every believer can participate in the New Creation and become a new "woman," a new "man," who is no longer under the curse of death.

The community that grew around John's teaching in Ephesus became a fountainhead of Marian theology. When the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD proclaimed Mary as Theotokos (God-bearer), it was affirming a truth long cherished in that city. 

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant

The relationship between Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the Ark of the Covenant represents one of the most profound theological connections in Scripture. This relationship is not merely symbolic but is deeply embedded in the textual fabric of Scripture, particularly evident when examining the Greek text of Luke's Gospel alongside the Septuagint's rendering of 2 Samuel 6. The verbal and thematic parallels between these passages reveal the Holy Spirit's inspiration in portraying Mary as the New Ark—the bearer not of stone tablets, but of the Word made flesh.

Exegetical Analysis of the Parallels:

1. The Journey to the Hill Country
2 Samuel 6:2 (LXX): "καὶ ἀνέστη καὶ ἐπορεύθη Δαυιδ" ("And David arose and went")

Luke 1:39 (Greek): "Ἀναστᾶσα δὲ Μαριὰμ... ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὴν ὀρεινὴν" ("Mary arose and went into the hill country")

The verbal correspondence here is striking. The Greek verb ἀνίστημι (anistēmi, "to arise") appears in both passages, followed by πορεύομαι (poreuomai, "to go"). This is not coincidental but reflects Luke's intentional literary design. The participle Ἀναστᾶσα (anastasa) in Luke 1:39 carries a sense of purposeful action—Mary rises with determination to undertake her journey, just as David did when retrieving the Ark.

The Greek construction suggests more than mere physical movement; it implies a response to divine calling. Mary's journey to Elizabeth wasn't a casual visit but a Spirit-led mission, carrying within her the presence of God Himself.

2. The Three-Month Stay
2 Samuel 6:11 (LXX): "καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἡ κιβωτὸς τοῦ κυρίου εἰς οἶκον Αβεδδαρα τοῦ Γεθθαίου μῆνας τρεῖς" ("And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for three months")

Luke 1:56: "Ἔμεινεν δὲ Μαριὰμ σὺν αὐτῇ ὡς μῆνας τρεῖς" ("And Mary remained with her about three months")

The Greek phrase "μῆνας τρεῖς" (mēnas treis, "three months") appears in both texts. The verb in Luke, Ἔμεινεν (emeinen, "remained"), carries connotations of dwelling or abiding, suggesting Mary's presence was not merely a visit but a dwelling of divine presence, much as the Ark "remained" (ἐκάθισεν, ekathisen) in Obed-Edom's house.

The specific timeframe of three months reinforces the parallel. In both cases, the dwelling of divine presence brings blessing for an extended period. Time itself becomes sacred when God's presence dwells among His people.

3. The Question of Worthiness
2 Samuel 6:9 (LXX): "πῶς εἰσελεύσεται ἡ κιβωτὸς κυρίου πρός με" ("How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?")

Luke 1:43: "καὶ πόθεν μοι τοῦτο ἵνα ἔλθῃ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου πρὸς ἐμέ" ("And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?")

The syntactical structure here is remarkably similar. In both texts, there is a question expressing unworthiness before a divine presence. The phrase "πρός με/ἐμέ" ("to me") appears in the same position in both sentences. Most significantly, Elizabeth calls Mary "ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου" ("the mother of my Lord")—the same title, "κύριος" (Lord), that is applied to God in reference to the Ark.

4. The Leaping for Joy
2 Samuel 6:16 (LXX): "καὶ Δαυιδ ἀνεκρούετο ἐν ὀργάνοις... καὶ Δαυιδ ὠρχεῖτο" ("And David was dancing with instruments... and David was leaping")

Luke 1:41: "ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς" ("the baby leaped in her womb")

The verb σκιρτάω (skirtaō, "to leap") in Luke 1:41 semantically parallels the dancing and leaping of David (ὀρχέομαι, orcheomai) before the Ark. The Septuagint uses a different term, but both verbs convey exultant movement in response to divine presence. John's leaping is not merely fetal movement but, as Luke clarifies, a response "in joy" (ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει, en agalliasei).

5. The Bringing of Blessing
2 Samuel 6:11 (LXX): "καὶ εὐλόγησεν κύριος ὅλον τὸν οἶκον Αβεδδαρα" ("And the Lord blessed the whole house of Obed-Edom")

Luke 1:41-44: "ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλισάβετ" ("Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit")

The blessing that came upon Obed-Edom's house through the Ark's presence finds its parallel in Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Spirit at Mary's arrival. The verb εὐλογέω (eulogeō, "to bless") appears in 2 Samuel, while in Luke, the filling with the Spirit represents the ultimate divine blessing.

5. The Proclamation with a Loud Voice

2 Samuel 6:15 (LXX): "ἐν φωνῇ σάλπιγγος" ("with the sound of the trumpet")

Luke 1:42: "καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ" ("and she exclaimed with a loud voice")

The final parallel is a powerful one. While David brings the Ark into Jerusalem with the sound of a trumpet ("φωνῇ σάλπιγγος," phonē salpingos), Elizabeth greets Mary with a loud voice ("φωνῇ μεγάλῃ," phonē megalē). Notice, while English translations miss the nuance the use of phonē/φωνῇ clearly links both the trumpet and the loud voice as public proclamations of the arrival of God's presence.

In the Old Testament, the trumpet sound was used to signal a holy event, while in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit inspires Elizabeth to make a similar, audible proclamation. The parallel demonstrates a shift from the ceremonial proclamation of the Old Covenant to a personal, Spirit-filled proclamation in the New.

These striking verbal and thematic parallels between 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1 are not mere coincidence. They reveal Luke's intentional literary and theological artistry, using the story of David and the Ark to frame Mary's role in salvation history. By portraying Mary as the New Ark, Luke highlights her sacred function as the one who carries God's presence into the world. This profound typological connection is a foundational piece of Marian theology, showing us that Mary's unique role was not a later invention but was woven into the very fabric of the inspired Word of God.

Mary as the Queen Mother

In the Davidic kingdom, a distinct position existed that has profound implications for our understanding of Mary's role in salvation history. The queen mother—known in Hebrew as the Gebirah (גְּבִירָה) or "Great Lady"—occupied a unique position of honor and authority. Unlike the king's wives, who could be numerous, there was only one mother of the king. She wore a crown, sat at the king's right hand, and served as an advocate for the people.

This tradition appears vividly in 1 Kings 2:19-20:

"So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her and bowed down to her. Then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king's mother, and she sat at his right hand. Then she said, 'I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.' And the king said to her, 'Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.'"

The Hebrew text emphasizes Solomon's reverence with the verb יִשְׁתַּחוּ (yishtachu), indicating a profound bow or prostration—remarkable behavior from the wisest and most powerful man in Israel toward anyone. This pattern repeats throughout Israel's monarchy, with queen mothers like Maacah (1 Kgs 15:13) and Nehushta (2 Kgs 24:8) wielding significant influence.

The Annunciation: Mary's Royal Commission

When Gabriel appears to Mary, his greeting establishes something profound about her identity and role. "Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη" (Chaire, kecharitōmenē) — "Hail, favored one" (Lk 1:28) employs language reminiscent of royal address. The perfect passive participle κεχαριτωμένη indicates not a temporary state but a permanent condition—Mary has been completely transformed by divine grace, not merely receiving a momentary favor.

Gabriel's proclamation about Jesus directly establishes Mary's royal maternity:

 "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Lk 1:32-33). 

The logical implication is unmistakable: if Jesus is the eternal Davidic king, then Mary necessarily becomes the Gebirah, the queen mother.

Mary's response, "γένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου" (genoito moi kata to rhēma sou) — "Let it be to me according to your word" (Lk 1:38) — represents her royal assent to God's plan. The optative mood of γένοιτό expresses not merely passive acceptance but active embrace of God's will, establishing her as the willing mother of the Messiah-King.

The Visitation: Royal Recognition

We spent a lot of time on this text when it came to Mary's role as the Ark, particularly with reference to the parallels here with 2 Samuel 6.  This episode is also relevant to the recognition of Mary as the new Queen Mother.

Elizabeth's greeting to Mary provides further evidence of Mary's royal status. Elizabeth, herself from priestly lineage through her husband Zechariah, would have been considered nobility in Jewish society. Yet she exclaims, "And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Lk 1:43).

The Greek phrase "ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου" (hē mētēr tou kyriou mou) — "the mother of my Lord" — parallels the royal protocol language used when addressing the queen mother. The title "my Lord" (τοῦ κυρίου μου) identifies Mary as the mother of the Davidic king.

Elizabeth's question, "Why is this granted to me?" demonstrates her recognition of Mary's superior dignity despite Elizabeth's own noble status. This represents a profound reversal of social expectations, as the elder woman of established priestly lineage honors the younger, seemingly ordinary woman who carries the Messiah-King.

The biblical foundation for Mary's role as Queen Mother provides a framework for understanding both Marian veneration and her intercessory role:

1. Veneration: Just as Solomon honored Bathsheba with a throne at his right hand, honoring Mary follows biblical precedent. The honor shown to her differs fundamentally from the worship reserved for God alone. Scriptural precedent distinguishes between worship and honor.  It should be noted that there is a language barrier here that sometimes makes it confusing.

In English our word worship come from two words, "worth" and "ship," it's about ascribing to someone their proper worth.  Thus, when Solomon bows before his mother, he's not "worshipping" her in the way we think about worshipping God.  He is honoring (or venerating) her due to the "worth" that her position represents.   

As such, Christians (mostly Catholics and the Orthodox) sharply differentiate between latreia (λατρεία) which is the worship due to God alone and dulia (δουλεία). Dulia is a Greek word that means "servitude" or "service." In theology, it's used to describe the honor and veneration given to saints. This is a lower form of reverence than latreia, as it is directed toward created beings who have achieved great holiness. It is not worship in the sense of adoration, but rather a profound respect for their virtues and their closeness to God.  

As such, the Church condemned a group known as the Collyridians for allegedly worshipping the Virgin Mary, offering her sacrifices, and elevating her to the role of a goddess. It is very important to maintain this distinction.  It is right and just to honor Mary, to venerate her, but not to worship her in the sense of latreia.    

2. Intercession: Mary's intercessory role is likewise grounded in her identity as the Gebirah. Just as the queen mother in ancient Israel advocated for the people, Mary intercedes on behalf of the faithful before her Son, the true King. Her presence at pivotal moments in Jesus' life underscores her ongoing maternal care for the Church, guiding and directing believers to her Son.

The Synthesis: The New Eve, The Ark, the Queen, and the Coronation in Revelation 12.

The Book of Revelation, written by John, provides the most compelling biblical evidence for all of the above.

It's a key text for understanding her role not only in the Church, but in heaven. In this text, we see the imagery of Mary as the "new eve," the "new Ark," and the Queen Mother all coming together in one dramatic scene.

In the final chapter of Revelation 11, the Apostle John describes a heavenly vision: "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple" (Rev 11:19). Immediately after this, the very next verse begins chapter 12 with another vision: "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head" (Rev 12:1).

It is crucial to understand that there were originally no chapter divisions in the Apostle John's original text. This means the image of the Ark is immediately followed by the image of the Woman. This suggests that John originally intended for these images to be understood together.

The Ark that everyone thought was missing is revealed to be the Woman, Mary. It should be no surprise (and certainly no stretch) to make this link, especially given how we saw the typological connection that identifies Mary as both the Ark and the Queen Mother in the narrative of the Visitation in Luke.

The interpretation of the Woman as Mary is the most natural and coherent understanding of the text. The Woman is pursued by a dragon who is universally believed to be Satan, and she gives birth to a Son who is universally believed to be Jesus. Given these two explicit and literal identifications, it makes little sense to suddenly jump to a purely symbolic interpretation of the Woman. She is a specific person, Mary.

In other words, while we can recognize that the woman in Revelation 12 is a symbol for Israel, and especially the Church (and the identity of the Church as the New Israel) such "symbolic" interpretations are not typically made regarding the dragon and the child. The plainest meaning implies that just as the dragon and child refer to specific persons (the devil and Jesus, respectively) the woman here is clearly the same woman who gave birth to the child - Mary, herself.

But how does this also connect to the image of Mary as the New Eve? The answer is in the striking parallels here between the first messianic prophecy in the Bible, the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 and what John depicts in the vision of Revelation 12.

Genesis 3:15 states, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." This verse establishes a cosmic conflict between the serpent (Satan) and a specific woman and her offspring.

John's vision in Revelation 12 serves as the dramatic and explicit fulfillment of this prophecy. The central characters are a woman, a dragon (the serpent), and a male child.

The Dragon and the Serpent: The text itself identifies the dragon as "that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world" (Rev 12:9). This directly links the dragon to the serpent in Genesis.

The Son and the Offspring: The male child born to the woman is "to rule all the nations with an iron scepter" (Rev 12:5), an undeniable reference to Christ, the offspring promised in Genesis 3:15.

The Woman and the "Enmity": The prophecy foretold "enmity" between the serpent and the woman. John's vision depicts this enmity perfectly: the dragon relentlessly pursues the woman and her child, attempting to devour the child at birth and later persecuting the woman as she flees into the wilderness. This dramatic persecution is the physical manifestation of the spiritual enmity promised in Genesis.

Therefore, Revelation 12 isn't just a symbolic story; it's a profound narrative that shows the original prophecy in Genesis coming to pass. The woman's role as the mother of the Messiah and her relentless persecution by the serpent are not abstract concepts but the fulfillment of the foundational promise of salvation.

What about the Assumption?

Given the deep Jewish roots of the Marian theology indicated above (and we haven't even touched on her purity/perpetual virginity and immaculate conception - but this post is getting pretty long) and the clear links of the above to early Apostolic tradition, it's worth asking...

What about the "Assumption," the teaching that after Mary's earthy course of life was over, she was taken body-and-soul into heaven?  

First, it should be noted that the "Assumption" doesn't necessarily mean that Mary didn't die. In fact, there is a strong strain in the tradition that suggests that Mary's body was taken into heaven after she died.  

However, given how we've seen so much of Marian theology deeply rooted in the Old Testament, it should bid us to ask: can a similar case be made that the Assumption has similar Jewish roots?  

It's an important question to ask, and it should probably be admitted, the Assumption (of all the Marian dogmas) takes a little more work to discern from the Scriptures than the notion of her intercession and veneration as Queen Mother, her role as the New Eve, or as the new Ark of the Covenant.  

That's one reason why the "dogma" of the Assumption wasn't formally defined by the Catholic Church until the middle of the twentieth century, even though the Assumption was celebrated on August 15th going back to at least the fifth century.  

Still, the idea of a bodily assumption itself is a profoundly Jewish one.  

Think of Enoch, who “walked with God, and he was not, for God took him” (Gen 5:24). Consider Elijah, swept into heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs 2:11). Jewish tradition even held that Moses, whose burial place remains unknown (Deut 34:6), was taken up by God. Some commentator see this reflected, for instance, in Jude 1:9. These examples demonstrate a divine precedent for bodily translation for those who were exceptionally faithful.

This Jewish worldview provides a crucial lens through which to understand Mary. She held a uniquely pivotal role in salvation history. If God honored Enoch, Elijah, and Moses in such extraordinary ways, how much more fitting that the vessel who carried the Son of God within her own body would be preserved from the decay of the grave?

Now, let's link all of this to the "appearance" of the Ark in Revelation 19:11.  

It's commonly believed that after the Babylonian conquest and the destruction of Solomon's temple that the Ark was forever lost. 

Well, that's not entirely true.  Protestants might easily miss this because the book isn't in their Bibles, but whether one accepts the canonicity of it or not is irrelevant. John, writing Reveltion, knew about it. So did most of his readers.  

"It was also contained in the same writing, how the prophet, being warned by God, commanded that the tabernacle and the ark should accompany him, till he came forth to the mountain where Moses went up, and saw the inheritance of God." (2 Maccabees 2:4).  

What's being discussed here is how the Prophet Jeremiah took the Ark out of the Temple (even though it had been there for hundreds of years) and hit it away on Mount Nebo (the place were Moses died) before the Babylonian invasion. 

But some people tried to follow Jeremiah and "mark" its location to find it later. He turns and rebukes them:

“The place shall remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. Then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated.” (2 Maccabees 2:7-8).

In other words, while the Ark of the Covenant was missing from the second Temple, there was an expectation based on what Jeremiah said in this passage that at the day when the Lord "again shows his mercy," the location of the Ark would be revealed.  

This brings us to Revelation 11:19.  It would have been a stunning revelation to the first hearers who received the vision.

For the first time in centuries the lost Ark's location has been found.  It's location was given to John.  

Except it's not on Mt. Nebo.  It's in Heaven.  Remember, the "earthly temple" (based on the Tabernacle) was built based off an archetype of the heavenly temple.  This is the temple John sees in Revelation.

And as soon as he sees the Ark... the image changes. He sees the woman.  Once John has seen the Ark, he sees the woman.  It's as if the two images overlap, and mingle, into one.  Given what we've discussed already about how Mary is the new Ark it makes sense. 

If Mary's body is the true Ark of the covenant on earth, it's wholly fitting that at the end of her life that her body would likewise be taken to its rightful place in the heavenly Holy of Holies.   Because her body (not just her soul!) is the new Ark of the Covenant.   Thus, like the Ark was taken up a mountain (often viewed in the Old Testament as connected to heaven itself) it makes complete sense that Mary's body, the New Ark, is taken up into heaven.  

Is this an exegetical "slam dunk"?  Well, there's certainly a lot of imagery going on here. However, when combined with what we see emerging very early in Christian tradition, it certainly seems to be the most viable interpretation of the text:  The New Ark, Mary's Body, was assumed into heaven, taking it's place in the heavenly temple, the Holy of Holies.  

Additional Evidence?

If we recognize the Jewish belief about the Ark being revealed again, being returned to the Holy of Holies, at the time when God again shows mercy, it would be difficult for any Christian not to recognize that when Jesus Himself (who raised the temple in "three days" speaking of his resurrection) ascended into heaven, he'd likewise bring his mother, the "vessel," the new Ark with him into heaven at the proper time.  

We have reason to believe the earliest Christians believed that this is exactly what happened. 

No Relics/Grave? 

Perhaps the most compelling earthly evidence for the Assumption is what we don't find: a gravesite or bodily relics of the Virgin Mary.

In the early Church, the remains of saints and martyrs were treasured, venerated, and became focal points for pilgrimage. We have claimed relics for nearly all the apostles and countless early Christians.

This isn't just the case for the original Apostles. We have bones associated with Mary Magdalene, and competing sites for her burial.  It's difficult to pin-point or legitimize any of these, but that's not the point.

The point is that early Christians made the claim of such sites/relics to begin with. 

Yet, for Mary the mother of Christ, the most revered woman in Christian history, no such tradition of bodily relics exists. No city claimed to house a tomb that contained her bones.

This silence is deafening. Why, if her body remained on earth, would it not have been the most prized possession of the early Church?

The most logical and anciently held answer is that even the earliest Christians believed that her body was not left to earthly decay. They believed her body was no longer on earth. No grave/tomb to visit. The only purported "tomb" sites in Jerusalem and Ephesus that were later ascribed to Mary were empty tombs. There were no relics to venerate.  

No matter what you think about the legitimacy of relics, the inconspicuous absence of these relics is remarkable. Especially when other figures, not even as highly as revered (like Mary Magdalene) had many relics/bones associated with them.  We even have bone relics of Priscilla (and Aquila, her husband) housed in the reliquary chapel in the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls in Rome.   Legitimate or not, it's quite curious why we'd have bones believed to belong Priscilla and Mary Magdalene but not Mary.  

The Assumption in the Church Fathers

I believe the well-established link between Mary and the Ark, and the Jewish expectations of the revelation of the Ark make a pretty compelling case already that the early Christians embraced the Assumption.  But where is this stated explicitly? 

St. Epiphanius wrote around 350 AD: "Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death." (Panarion 79).

What's most remarkable about this account is that it occurs in a text where St. Epiphanius is actually condemning the Collyridians (mentioned earlier) who'd offered sacrificial worship to Mary. Even in this context, he admits the belief (that seems to be uncontroversial) that Mary was assumed into heaven.  While he later admits that no one knows for sure if Mary actually died before or after her assumption, that her body was taken into heaven is presented as a well-known fact. 

In addition, there have been earlier fragments (going back to the 2nd century) that detail various "transitus" accounts of Mary's assumption.  You can read a little more about those HERE.  

The bottom line.

Despite some claims that Catholic Marian dogmas emerge from the pagan world and are later developments, it seems clear that they actually have Jewish roots.

This suggests they belong to Apostolic - not later - tradition.  Why?  Because it's far more likely that these very Jewish ideas about Mary came from leaders in the early church well-steeped in the Old Testament and Jewish first-century thought.  That means, it's far less likely that these dogmas emerged from a next-generation Church that was lead primarily by Gentile converts. It almost certainly comes from the Apostles, themselves. 

 

God Bless,

Judah

For more on this topic, I recommend Dr. Brand Pitre's book: Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary.