Exactly where do we find examples of 'the durable suspicion that the Gospel taught Gnosticism' of which Haenchen speaks, or evidence that the Great Church was wary or suspicious of this 'tainted' Gospel, or that it came close to discarding this Gospel altogether because of its association with gnostic error? If Charlesworth and others are correct it should not be difficult to form a long and eminent list of the 'many pre-Nicene critics' who 'did not consider it reliable and authentic' because of its use by heretics like Heracleon and the rest. And yet, despite the sweeping and dogmatic statements of some scholars, seldom are any of the host of orthodox Johannophobes ever named besides Gaius of Rome and those Sanders calls the 'conservative, orthodox, anti-Gnostic Alogi'. We certainly cannot say that we have encountered any of their number in our survey of the last thirty years of the second century, up to the emergence of Gaius himself. Tradition-bound Rome is said to have been the bastion of orthodox anti-Johannine sentiment, yet so far we have observed from the very limited remains of Roman Christianity of this period only a quite positive engagement with the Fourth Gospel. The church there wanted scenes from this Gospel to adorn the subterranean caverns where it buried its faithful; Hegesippus in Rome evidently connected the Fourth Gospel and the Revelation with the apostle John; Polycrates could assume the Roman Bishop Victor would know about John the disciple of Jesus who reclined next to the Lord at his Last Supper; both Polycrates and Irenaeus could assume that this Roman bishop would respect the apostolic authority of this figure; the author of the Muratorian Fragment accepted this Gospel as canonical and apostolic, as one of the four, and along with the rest of the Johannine literature; Tertullian in Carthage, in putting forth the apostolic connections of the church at Rome, links that church not only to Paul and Peter but also to John, the author of the Apocalypse, who is the same apostle who wrote the Gospel and the First Letter. At this point, then, instead of looking like a late manifestation of a long-standing, principled, orthodox opposition to the Fourth Gospel, the criticisms of which have been attributed to Gaius would seem to be an interesting but essentially anomalous deviation from the opinio communis of the churches throughout the empire, including Rome, at the time.