The second point at which the criterion of coherence can productively be applied is in a consideration of the use of the historic present in the gospels. The problem of whether this particular idiom reflects Aramaic or Latin influence is immaterial for the limited purposes in mind here. (Farmer's other attempts to show that various features of Mark's Greek have affinities with later, second-century, apocryphal gospels, notably the Acta Pilati, are really beside the point. It is impossible to argue anything positive about Mark's date on the basis of these grammatical or verbal affinities. Such peculiarities, if they are indeed Latinisms, are much more likely to reflect Mark's own style or background than any relation to Matthew and Luke. Nor, indeed, need Latin influence reflect a non-Palestinian provenance. Latin influence must have been present in Palestine since the occupation of the country by Roman troops. On the other hand, a Latin provenance for Mark does not preclude an early date of writing for Mark, since there was clearly an established Christian community in Rome itself by the early 50s if not before.) Nevertheless, whether the use of the historic present is an Aramaism or a Latinism, it is still a phenomenon which exists and which is used in varying amounts by each of the three synoptists.

Farmer appeals to what is essentially the criterion of coherence in his argument that the 2DH gives a basically inconsistent picture of what Matthew and Luke must have done with Mark's usage.