I do. But I have always thought that pithy quotes should be used sparingly.
So then, what would you call it when someone is certain of something which cannot be proven? I understand if you're afraid of the hotseat such a question poses.
You might be right on this point. As I said earlier, some things can be read between the lines. However, what if the Pharisees did not prepare to stone him. Perhaps the only thing the author remembered was what Jesus said and how he said it, and misremembered anything the Pharisees did. Answering this question, either in favor of Wright or in favor of you, requires making an assumption of the truth of these constituent parts. I'm not arguing against this criticism. I'm saying that there are assumptions that you make, that we all make, that you don't realize are assumptions.There is no interpretation necessary when Jesus references the Son of Man and the Pharisees prepare to stone Him. Wright claims that Jesus was not explicitly referring to Himself. Perhaps, but that is a distinction without a difference, or, for the nose bleed crowd, a parsing akin to 'it depends on what the definitiono of the word is - is.'
Another point on whether or not he explicitly referred to himself as the Son of Man is what Wright intended by it. As DWill said, "The point Wright makes is that the idea that Jesus was the Son of Man came only after the crucifixion, when his followers then realized that he must have been speaking cryptically of himself. It is a "postmortem identification of Jesus with the Son of Man" (310)."
So in making the inference, such as that only the Son of Man can forgive sins, and that the Pharisees had the urge to stone him, are precisely what Wright is talking about. Although Jesus never refers to himself as such explicitly in those instances, it can be seen after the fact that he was speaking cryptically of himself. Which means he is implicitly referring to himself as the Son of Man, as you point out, which also appears to coincide with what Wright is saying.