There is plenty of broader literature. I can cite you numerous examples of the Early Church Fathers affirming their belief that the Eucharist is the Real Body and Blood of Jesus beginning in the first century and continuing unbroken until today. These include the Didache (c 90-150 A.D.), St. Clement of Rome, also known as Pope Clement I (d. 99 A.D.) , St. Justin Martyr (100 - 165 A.D.), St. Clement of Alxandria (150-216 A.D.), Tertullian (160 – 225 A.D.), St. Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 A.D.) Origen (185 – 254 A.D.) , St. Irenaeus (unknown – 202 A.D), St. Cyprian of Carthage (c 250 A.D.), St, Athanasius of Alexandria (296 – 373 A.D.), St. Hilary of Poitiers (300 – 368 A.D.), St. Ephrem of Syria (306 – 373 A.D.), St Cyril of Jerusalem (313 – 386 A. D.), St. Basil of Caesarea (329 – 379 A.D.), St. Ambrose of Milan (330-397 A.D.) , St. Gregory of Nyssa (335 – 395 A.D.) , St. Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 A.D.), and the Council of Ephesus 431 A.D.). I can provide numerous examples from these as well as numerous other Fathers. In this broader context I will continue to interpret this “hapax legomenon” in the context of Church Tradition.
Peace be with you
NL, I’ve seen a number of patristic quotes re the eucharist, and each and every one I have seen so far, at least in the ante-Nicene period, is completely compatible with a spiritual presence rather than the transubstantiated corporeal presence of Aquinas under the inverted categories of Aristotle. If you want to make a case for transubstantiation in Matt 6:11, fine, do that. But it has to be unequivocal, and that I haven’t seen yet, not even in the fathers.
But getting back to epiousion, the lexical evidence for a word in the “broader literature” can only be the actual word itself, and it must be contemporaneous (private letters, shopping lists, legal documents, etc. of the same period or earlier), not later patristic speculations over a known hapax. Nothing else counts if you’re doing the raw lexicography. Finding the same word in different conjugations would also help, but nothing is as good as seeing the exact word in question in several different external contexts.
So, as long as you assert that epiousion is a hapax, you have precluded yourself from introducing even one scintilla of evidence from alternative contexts, as you have already conceded they do not exist for this particular, exact word.
Peace,
SR