ON the basis of Justin's use of the phrase αρσιv ov in Dial. 17 (rendered ‘godless heresy’ by Reith; see above, p. 66), Frend maintains that the Jews accused Christians of atheism. In similar fashion, Huidekoper suggests as the English equivalent ‘an atheistic sect’. This rendering is not impossible, but ov can just as well be taken as meaning simply ‘godless’, that is, ‘wicked’. Huidekoper acknowledges that, were it not for the evidence of this passage in Justin, he would be inclined to regard oι as a designation of Gentile monotheists generally. To the present writer it seems unlikely that Jews, who were just as committed to the neglect of the State gods as the Christians, would use oι in its narrower sense to attack Gentile monotheists, whether Christian or not. It is therefore better to understand the adjective in its broader connotation as simply a term of strong disapproval. Such a use is clearly indicated in Justin's First Apology, ch. 27, where the adjective modifies μíι ‘intercourse’. Philo, De Fuga et Inventione xxi (114), employs o as the equivalent of oλúoσ; that is, polytheism is really atheism. If this is how hellenistic Jews employed o in its narrower sense, it is not likely that they applied the term to Christians, who, despite their adoration of the Risen Christ, were hesitant to refer to him as a Δúτρo ó.

K. Lake, in the Loeb edition of Eusebius, translates this phrase (cited by Eusebius from Justin) as ‘a seditious sect’. This is an ingenious rendering, based on the notion that the oι who neglected the State gods were guilty of disloyalty to the State.