Earliest attestation of "does/do/did not + verb"

The brief answer is:

The earliest attestation of do in negative sentences is circa 1400. This use arose, according to Visser (1969: 1529), "almost simultaneously" with the positive declarative, and was an optional form that coexisted with examples such as I went not. By about 1900, the forms with the negative after the main verb were illicit.
_{Markedness isomorphism as a goal of language change: The spread of periphrastic do in English}

The long answer is that people have written entire papers on the origin and development of do-periphrasis and the specific type you're asking about. Here are some links:

• The use of periphrastic do in Early Modern English negative declaratives: evidence from the Helsinki Corpus
• The Oxford History of English: Affirmative and Negative Do
• Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England: Periphrastic Do in Negative Statements
• The rise of do-support in English: implications for clause structure

Note:

Even today, "be" still uses the former structure.

From what I've read, the two are not considered to be the same thing. The only reason be can be used like this is because it's an auxiliary/copula. Auxiliaries/copulas can not have do-support in Standard English.