In the previous chapter, it was seen that the fact that Mark's order is supported either by Matthew, or by Luke, has been used in discussions of the Synoptic Problem. Advocates of the GH have claimed that the phenomenon is easily explicable only if Mark followed each of his sources alternately. The question of the same phenomenon of alternating agreement has been raised by Longstaff, looking at the detailed wording within each pericope rather than at the ordering of the material. Longstaff takes up the critical remarks made about the GH by Abbott, Beare and others, viz. that it is impossible to conceive of any writer conflating his sources in the way Mark must have done if the GH is correct. With these remarks in mind, Longstaff examines various examples of authors who are known to have conflated sources, to see what in fact conflators did with their sources. Thus he examines Tatian's composition of the Diatessaron, together with two mediaeval chroniclers, Benedict of Peterborough (who used a life of Becket by John of Salisbury and an anonymous document known as the Passio Sancti Thomae) and Roger of Hovedon (who used Benedict's chronicle and also made independent use of the Passio). From these Longstaff seeks to derive a number of ‘literary characteristics which result from conflation’, and which might then provide a measure of objectivity in deciding whether Mark's gospel is a conflated document.