It is common in the USA nowadays for all too many to believe that the Dormition of the Virgin Mary is of a story from a very late date. But, it is not so. There are actually several Early Church Fathers who speak to the issue of the Virgin Mary and her death and translation. See below from the OCA website.
… The respect of ancient Christians for the Mother of God was so great that they preserved what they could about Her life, what they could take note of concerning Her sayings and deeds, and they even passed down to us a description of Her outward appearance.
According to Tradition, based on the words of the Hieromartyrs Dionysius the Areopagite (October 3), Ignatius the God-Bearer (December 20), St Ambrose of Milan (December 7) had occasion to write in his work “On Virgins” concerning the Mother of God: “She was a Virgin not only in body, but also in soul, humble of heart, circumspect in word, wise in mind, not overly given to speaking, a lover of reading and of work, and prudent in speech. Her rule of life was to offend no one, to intend good for everyone, to respect the aged, not envy others, avoid bragging, be healthy of mind, and to love virtue.” …
Already in the first century, the Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite wrote about Her “Falling-Asleep.” In the second century, the account of the bodily ascent of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Heaven is found in the works of Meliton, Bishop of Sardis. In the fourth century, St Epiphanius of Cyprus refers to the tradition about the “Falling Asleep” of the Mother of God. In the fifth century, St Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, told the holy Byzantine Empress Pulcheria: “Although there is no account of the circumstances of Her death in Holy Scripture, we know about them from the most ancient and credible Tradition.”
Both Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Saint Dionysius the Areopagite wrote about meeting the Virgin Mary. Amazingly, Saint Dionysius is writing the letter to Saint Paul who was still alive at the time of the writing. It again strikes me how little most American Protestant Christians know about the testimonies that are present in Early Church history, even that contemporary with the writing of the New Testament. Moreover, while I buy the argument that the New Testament is trustworthy, I find it hard to buy the argument that anything that is not in the New Testament and does not accord with what I currently believe must be wrong, even when the Holy Fathers support it. It seems to be an all too facile an argument to simply dismiss anything with which I disagree as people mistaken about Holy Scripture, even if it is part of very early Holy Tradition. To argue that the interpretative community of that time is so mistaken is to argue that they are also quite mistaken about what is Scripture. In fact, this is precisely the argument of the modern liberals. Liberals are nothing more than the inheritors of a Protestant tradition of negating any Early Church witness which disagrees with what they wish to believe.
So, you can either call people like Saint Dionysius wrong, and then leave the door open to declaring Scripture to be wrong, or you can say that he is right, and then begin your journey to the Truth.
that last line was a kicker. i loved it ^_^