Les quatre Evangiles canoniques, comme l'on sait, relatent la façon dont Jésus, peu après qu'il eut pénétré pour la première fois dans le Temple de Jérusalem, en chassa les marchands d'animaux et les changeurs, puis commenta cet acte (Marc xi. 15–19; Matt. xxi. 12–17; Luc xix. 45–6; Jean ii. 13–22).Ces quatre récits sont très brefs, même si l'on tient compte de la concision qui caractérise les évangélistes. Rien qui ressemble ici à la relative ampleur des narrations de la Passion ou de certains récits de guèrison. Les évangélistes racontent en passant un épisode auquel ils ne paraissent pas à première vue attribuer une importance exceptionnelle. Mais ils le font sans réticence importante, puisqu'aucun d'eux n'a passé l'événement sous silence ou ne s'est efforcé de présenter une défense du geste de Jésus. Bref, il s'agit apparemment pour eux d'une anecdotesignificative parmi bon nombre d'autres.

In his important study on the origin of text-types, Ernest C. Colwell concludes with ten suggestions for further investigation and criticism. The ninth of these suggestions reads: ‘The textual history of the New Testament differs from corpus to corpus, and even from book to book; therefore the witnesses have to be regrouped in each new section.’ A corollary to this suggestion is the fact that certain manuscripts also differ from book to book—and even within books—as to the type of text they represent. Codex W, which makes a distinct change from a Neutral to a Byzantine type of text at Luke viii. 12 and is Western in Mark i. I–V. 30, is an example of this kind of ‘divided’ MS. Therefore, in the latest manuals text-type groupings which both regroup from corpus to corpus and recognize the ‘divided’ nature of certain MSS, appear as a matter of course.

The discussion about the meaning of the title ‘Son of Man’ continues to be a lively part of the quest for the historical Jesus. Nevertheless the discussion gives the impression of having come to a kind of stalemate; and this suggests that we ought to examine the method by which it has been pursued, to see if a fruitful alternative method can be found. The method usually followed is dominated by these three characteristics:

(1) Diligent investigation is devoted to trying to distinguish which of the Son of Man sayings in the gospels (if any) are genuine sayings of Jesus.

(2) It is accepted that the synoptic Son of Man sayings fall into three distinct groups, referring (a) to Jesus during his earthly life as Son of Man, (b) to predictions of Jesus' death and resurrection as Son of Man, and (c) to the future coming of the Son of Man at the end of the age. Since the meaning of the title is understood to differ from group to group, and especially between the last group and the other two, the discussion of genuineness has mostly taken the form of asking within which group or groups the genuine sayings are to be sought.

(3) With respect to the meaning of the title, attention is concentrated on the status which it connotes (e.g. lowliness, suffering, exaltation, authority, vindication, heavenly enthronement, etc.), but little inquiry is made concerning the function which the Son of Man performs.