him? I do not believe he meant the temple; I do not think he said or
meant '_in my fathers house'_.

What then makes those who give us this translation, prefer it to the
phrase in the authorized version, '_about my Father's business_'?

One or other of two causes--most likely both together: an ecclesiastical
fancy, and the mere fact that he was found in the temple. A mind
ecclesiastical will presume the temple the fittest, therefore most
likely place, for the Son of God to betake himself to, but such a mind
would not be the first to reflect that the temple was a place where the
Father was worshipped neither in spirit nor in truth--a place built by
one of the vilest rulers of this world, less fit than many another spot
for the special presence of him of whom the prophet bears witness: 'Thus
saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is
Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a
contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to
revive the heart of the contrite ones.' Jesus himself, with the same
breath in which once he called it his father's house, called it a den of
thieves. His expulsion from it of the buyers and sellers, was the first
waft of the fan with which he was come to purge his father's dominions.
Nothing could ever cleanse that house; his fanning rose to a tempest,
and swept it out of his father's world.

For the second possible cause of the change from _business_ to
_temple_--the mere fact that he was found in the temple, can hardly be a
reason for his expecting his parents to know that he was there; and if
it witnessed to some way of thought or habit of his with which they were
acquainted, it is, I repeat, difficult to see why the parents should
fail to perceive what the interpreters have found so easily. But the