The House,the Table,and the Message: Spatial Dynamics in the Synoptic Gospels

Abstract

This study explores spatial dynamics in the synoptic Gospels, focusing on how each synoptic Gospel author frames Jesus’s movements and the significance of ‘the house’, with particular attention to table fellowship with Levi as a narrative marker. While Luke depicts Jesus as a wandering teacher, Matthew anchors him in Capernaum, portraying his own house as a hub for ministry. Mark takes a middle approach, linking Jesus to the house of Simon and Andrew. Through both close and distant reading, this article examines how spatial language shapes theological perspectives on early Christian community structures and reveals the distinct narrative strategies that define each Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus.

Introduction

How do the synoptic Gospels characterize Jesus’s movements, and what role do spatial markers play in shaping these narratives? ¹ The question invites us to reexamine the traditional image of Jesus as an itinerant preacher—a figure constantly on the move, spreading his message across Galilee and Judea. ² While this portrayal has been influential, it does not equally reflect the emphasis found in all three synoptic Gospels. Instead, each Gospel employs unique patterns of spatial markers and narrative strategies to construct a distinct vision of Jesus’s ministry.

The pericope of Jesus’s table fellowship with the tax collector Levi/Matthew in Mark 2, Matthew 9, and Luke 5, though very similar at first, is framed by each Gospel author to highlight a specific trait of Jesus’s ministry, thus reflecting different Christian ways of life in the first communities. Luke, for example, underlines the theme of movement, presenting Jesus as a wandering teacher welcomed into various towns and homes, like the home of Levi. This narrative aligns with Luke’s broader theological motif of discipleship as a call to leave everything behind. In contrast, Matthew anchors Jesus’s ministry in a more localized context. Here, Jesus operates from his own home in Capernaum that functions as a hub for teaching, healing, and hosting gatherings. Mark occupies a middle ground, blending the themes of itinerancy and stability by situating Jesus in the home of his first disciples, Simon and Andrew—a shared space for ministry and retreat.

Understanding these distinctions requires more than a close reading of individual passages. Dominant interpretive patterns, often drawn from one Gospel (in this case particularly Luke), can obscure the nuances of others. ³ This challenge invites the use of distant reading methods, which allow identifying broader textual patterns—such as recurring spatial markers—across the Gospels. By combining close reading (part I) with distant reading (part II), this article seeks to bridge the gap between isolated textual observations and larger narrative frameworks, uncovering distinctive spatial dynamics that shape each Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus’s ministry. Specifically, this article investigates how spatial language, particularly the differing representations of ‘the house’ in Mk 2.15 and its parallels, informs our understanding of Jesus’s movements and his relationships to the people and places he encounters. By analyzing how each Gospel author constructs the notion of ‘the house’ within their narrative framework, the study highlights the theological and literary significance of these spatial markers. ⁴

Close Reading: Where Did Levi Eat?

Mark 2.15: Simon and Andrew’s House

2.13 He went out again beside the sea; the whole crowd gathered around him, and he taught them. 14 As he was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax-collection station, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he got up and followed him. 15 And as he sat at dinner in his house (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ), many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors … 18 Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and they came and said to him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast …” 23 One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields … ⁵

After calling Levi, the Markan Jesus leaves the scene with the tax collector following him. The next scene takes place in ‘his house’. The subsequent conversation is with people who had followed Jesus, including the Pharisees’ scribes observing the scene. After this teaching, there is a sudden shift to a new location, the grainfields.

It has been suggested that the ‘his’ (αὐτοῦ) in 2.15 references either Levi or Jesus. The traditional redaktionsgeschichtliche reasoning for identifying the referent of the pronoun with a character in the narrative (Levi) was that the pre-Markan dinner scene was located in Levi’s house (as Luke preserved it). When Mark combined the dinner scene with the calling of Levi, he moved his name to v. 14 and replaced it in v. 15 with the pronoun, thus making the text ambiguous but not altering the localization (see Gnilka 1978: 104; Pesch 1984: 162–64).

Instead of disconnecting the dinner scene from the calling story, Joanna Dewey ‘identified’ the house as Levi’s as a result of his calling. She ‘reads’ the pericope as a parallel to the calling of Simon and the subsequent dinner scene in Mk 1.16–18, 29–31 (Dewey 1979: 81). However, the dinner scene in 1.29–31 is not motivated by the calling of Simon and Andrew (both scenes are separated by the teaching and healing scene in the synagogue) but by the healing of the mother-in-law. Similarly, Thomas Söding reads the pericope from the Lukan parallel (Lk. 5.29) as a dinner motivated by the calling of Levi, though he notices that Levi does not play any part in the dinner scene. Furthermore, he sees the change of scenery (sea—way—house) as an indicator that Jesus is on his way home from his teaching activities, which does not fit entirely to the narrative that Jesus went with Levi to Levi’s home (Söding 2022: 76–79).

A slight indicator against this reading might be the notion that Levi ‘followed’ Jesus. ἀκολουθέω in Mark is most often used in the original meaning of walking behind; 9.38 alone might have just the metaphorical meaning of discipleship. Since in 2.14 a spatial movement is expressed, a purely metaphorical reading seems out of the question (see Bosenius 2014: 137). In addition to the significance of ἀκολουθέω (1), Elizabeth Struthers Malbon (1985: 282–83) argues for Jesus as the house owner, based on several further points: the unlikelihood that the scribes would be present in the tax collector’s house (2), ⁶ the fact that Jesus, not Levi, acts as the host in 2.17 (3), and the observation that ‘him’ (αὐτῷ) in 2.14 and ‘he’ (αὐτόν) in 2.15 clearly refer to Jesus (4). ⁷

The first two arguments are only arguments against Levi’s house. Furthermore, one should be cautious not to over-interpret the pairing of tax collectors and sinners ⁸ in the criticism of the scribes. The idea that tax collectors were a group to be avoided and that it was a disgrace to enter their homes cannot be sustained as a generalization. Aliyah El Mansy has shown, based on papyrological evidence, that tax collectors were influential people well-connected in their communities, as Josephus (Bell. 2.287) reports about John the tax collector, who is counted among the honourable Jews in Caesarea (see El Mansy 2024: 118–26, 269 on Josephus and on the implications for Mk 2.14–16).

This leaves only arguments 3 and 4. Andrew Doole offers two more—albeit similar—arguments: (1) It does not seem plausible that Jesus stayed in Peter’s/Andrew’s house with Simon’s mother-in-law when he sent the disciples out on a mission: ‘Although it is never explained where Jesus is while the apostles are away two-by-two, one must locate him somewhere’ (Doole 2017: 48–49). (2) Because in the preceding pericope no one objected to the unroofing of the house (Mk 2.4), it must have been Jesus’s own house. However, arguing from a narrative null-statement or gap runs counter to the Markan narrative characteristic of focusing on the essential, leaving out details. As will be shown next through a narratological analysis, Mark goes to great lengths to establish the house of Simon and Andrew as the ‘house of Jesus’ in the text. He does so by providing various textual clues on the narrative level.

When Mark’s Jesus arrives in Galilee, he calls his first four disciples by the Sea of Galilee, and then they go to Capernaum together. Following an exorcism and teaching in the synagogue, they immediately go to the house of Simon and Andrew (1.29), ⁹ where Jesus heals Simon’s mother-in-law. In the evening, they ‘bring the many sick and possessed and gather’ at the door to him (1.32–33). Jesus leaves the house at dawn and retreats to a secluded place where his four disciples find him and say, ‘Everyone is looking for you!’ (1.37).

The term ‘seek/looking for’ (ζητέω) used here is employed in a similar sense in Mark only in 3.32, where Jesus’s family stands outside the house and cannot come to him, and in 16.6, where it says that the women could not find Jesus’s body. Otherwise, in Mark, it is used in the sense of demanding something (e.g., a sign) or attempting something (e.g., to seize him). This differs from Matthew, where it is used exclusively in reference to the risen Jesus being sought (Mt. 28.5). The parallel in Matthew (12.47) to Mk 3.32 is textually uncertain and missing in significant manuscripts. Where the pre-Easter Jesus is located—at least in Galilee—is always known to the people in Matthew. In the parallel account in Luke (4.42), it says that ‘the crowd sought Jesus and came to him’ (καὶ οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπεζήτουν αὐτὸν καὶ ἦλθον ἕως αὐτοῦ). In Mark, this verse (1.37) is an indication that Jesus’s whereabouts are initially unknown to the public. ¹⁰ Only once the house is established are Jesus’s whereabouts always known (Mk 3.20; 6.32–33; see also 7.24: ‘And he entered a house and wanted no one to know it, but he could not remain hidden’.)

Instead of addressing the crowd, he travels throughout Galilee ¹¹ before returning to Capernaum, where it takes ‘a few days’ (δι’ ἡμερῶν) for people to learn that he is ‘in the house’. The meaning of this phrase (2.1: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πάλιν εἰς Καϕαρναοὺμ δι’ ἡμερῶν ἠκούσθη ὅτι ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν) is interpreted differently: Does δι’ ἡμερῶν refer to εἰσελθών (Collins 2007: 184): ‘And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported’; or to ἠκούσθη (Pesch 1984: 153 and 152 n. a): ‘And when he returned to Capernaum, after some days it was reported’? The construction used here clearly separates the temporal phrase from πάλιν (‘again’, ‘re-’turned), making it more likely that it refers to ἠκούσθη. Mark uses πάλιν with a temporal phrase in two other instances, where the two are compressed into a syntagma, unlike in this passage: 8.1, ‘In those days when there was again a great crowd’ (ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις πάλιν) and 14.70, ‘Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter’ (καὶ μετὰ μικρὸν πάλιν). ¹² The fact that Jesus’s abode is not immediately known in 2.1 implies that word first has to travel that Jesus is at Simon and Andrew’s house again. ¹³ Now, the house of Peter and Andrew is established as Jesus’s residence and can be referenced in the coming chapters as ‘his house’ ¹⁴ or ‘the house’ or just ‘house’.

The question remains whether the differing uses of ‘house’ in Mark imply differing meanings. Mark uses house (either οἶκος or οἰκία, without any semantic difference) regularly with an article when specifying the house further through the genitive clause (1.29: ‘they entered the house of Simon and Andrew’ [εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος καὶ Ἀνδρέου]; 2.15: ‘And as he sat at dinner in his house’ [γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ], NRSV-UE modified; 5.38: ‘When they came to the synagogue leader’s house [i.e. Jairus]’ [καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου]; 14.3: ‘While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper’ [Καὶ ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ]), but he can drop the article as well (8.3: ‘If I send them away hungry to their homes’ [καὶ ἐὰν ἀπολύσω αὐτοὺς νήστεις εἰς οἶκον αὐτῶν]; 8.26: ‘Then he sent him away to his home’ [καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ λέγων]).

He can use ‘house’ with and without an article without any difference; not every ‘house’ without an article means ‘home’, as in 3.20 (‘Then he went home, and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat’. [Καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς οἶκον· καὶ συνέρχεται πάλιν [ὁ] ὄχλος, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτοὺς μηδὲ ἄρτον ϕαγεῖν]) and 7.17 (‘When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable’ [Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν παραβολήν]) versus 7.24 (‘From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house’, [Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἀναστὰς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὰ ὅρια Τύρου. Καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς οἰκίαν]) ¹⁵ and 9.28 (‘When he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately’ [Καὶ εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς οἶκον]) ¹⁶ .

Not every ‘house’ with an article must be specified (against Malbon 1985: 290 n. 15)—compare 2.1 (‘after some days it was reported that he was in a house’ [δι’ ἡμερῶν ἠκούσθη ὅτι ἐν οἴκῳ ἐστίν], NRSV-UE modified) with 9.33 (‘Then they came to Capernaum, and when he was in the house he asked them’ [Καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Καϕαρναούμ. Καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ γενόμενος ἐπηρώτα αὐτούς]) and 10.10 (‘Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter’ [Καὶ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν πάλιν οἱ μαθηταὶ περὶ τούτου ἐπηρώτων αὐτόν ¹⁷ ]). As this summary of the construction of ‘house’ makes apparent, Mark’s grammar does not allow us to draw any additional inferences about the nature of a house.

After leaving the house again (2.13), the next house scene is the one with Levi. Since so far no other house has been introduced and there are no textual hints associating the house with Levi (as in Luke), ‘in his house’ (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ) references the house previously mentioned in 1.29 and 2.1 (cf. Bosenius 2014: 136, who stresses the Gospel of Mark as a coherent narrative). Likewise, the text does not provide any textual markers that Jesus was a resident of Capernaum (unlike Matthew) and lived in his own house. ¹⁸

After the meal scene, Jesus departs from the house and returns back ‘to a house’ (3.20: εἰς οἶκον) where crowds gather, into which he invites the scribes from Jerusalem (3.23), and where his mother and brothers stand ‘outside’ (ἔξω, 3.31–32). ¹⁹ Here we once more find a house that is a well-known place of residence for Jesus, well known for people from Capernaum, Jerusalem, and Nazareth, ²⁰ so that it can be concluded that this is the same house. The phrase ‘those with him’ (οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, 3.21) is often interpreted as the initial introduction of his family (as in the NRSV) and the first part of the Markan ‘sandwich technique’ (3.21, 31–35). ²¹ While this is a possible contemporary interpretation of the phrase (see Weaver 2024), Mark does not use it again, and it would be a very uncharacteristic way for Mark to introduce entities that later play a significant role (Judas Iscariot: 3.19; 14.10; the women as resurrection witnesses: 15.40–41, 47; 16.1–8; Jesus’s hometown: 1.9, 24; 6.1; compare, for example, Paul in Acts 7.58–8.3; 9.1–31; 11.25–30; 12,25—28.31 or Jesus’s brother James in Acts 1.14; 12.17; 15.13–21; 21.18).

Thus, it seems more likely that οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ is a group around Jesus leaving the house, being another instance of the disciples’ incomprehension. Once again, Jesus leaves the house (4.35–41), sends out his disciples who later return to him (6.30), but no specific place or house is mentioned. ²² Jesus then withdraws again—and later the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem gather with him (7.1); he calls the crowd to himself (7.14), and subsequently withdraws ‘into the house’ (7.17: εἰς οἶκον). This setting, structured similarly to previous stories, seems again to reference the house of Simon and Andrew. ²³

The pattern repeats again: he departs to the region of Sidon and Tyre, where he is welcomed ‘in a house’ (7.24: εἰς οἰκίαν) and eventually once more retreats ‘into a house’ to talk to his disciples (9.28: εἰς οἶκον), leaves again, returns to Capernaum, and, upon arriving ‘at a house’, speaks with his disciples once more (9.33: ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ). After leaving for Jerusalem, there are two further house scenes. The first is in 10.10 in an unspecified house (εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν), which resembles the previous two house scenes. ²⁴ The final one is then in 14.3: in the house of Simon the leper (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ). ²⁵

The house primarily serves as a place for Jesus to speak with his disciples privately, away from the public crowd. At the same time, it highlights that Jesus cannot remain hidden because everyone always comes rushing to him (2.1; 7.24). ²⁶ It is also a location where scribes and those seeking healing come to him, where he shares fellowship, especially with outsiders. The only names of house owners who Jesus visits are Simon and Andrew (1.29), Jairus (5.38), Simon the leper (14.3), and the specific-unspecific ‘his house’ (2.15). The houses in Tyre and Transjordan (7.24; 10.10) are not assigned to any person. All other unspecified houses (2.1; 3.20; 7.17; 9.33, possibly 9.28) have a connection to Capernaum, ²⁷ suggesting that these might be identified with the initially introduced house of Simon and Andrew: This house is a regular reference point, one that must first be established (1.29; 2.1, 15) and is not known from the outset.

Neither grammatical constructions (οἶκος or οἰκία with or without an article), narratological undetermined personal pronouns (‘his’ [αὐτοῦ] in 2.15), socio-historical realities (e.g., table-fellowship with tax collectors), nor narrative lacunae (where did Jesus stay when Simon and Andrew were absent?) are sufficient to identify the house(s) in the Gospel of Mark. Mark regularly introduces relevant characters and places ²⁸ in his text before working with them further later on. He works with the narratologically structured knowledge of his implied readers, not with an unspecific pre-textual encyclopaedia of actual readers. Thus, it seems most likely that to identify the house(s) in the Gospel of Mark, one should read the Gospel from the beginning. ²⁹

Matthew 9.10: Jesus’s House

9.9 As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax-collection station, and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he got up and followed him. 10 And as he sat at dinner in the house (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ), many tax collectors and sinners came (ἐλθόντες) and were sitting with Jesus and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, … 14 Then the disciples of John came (προσέρχονται) to him, saying, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast often …’ 18 While he was saying these things to them, suddenly a leader came (ἐλθών) in and knelt before him, saying … 19 And Jesus got up and followed him, with his disciples …

In Matthew, the house is also a key component in the story of Jesus. Several houses are explicitly associated with Jesus over the course of the Gospel. Unlike in Luke, where infant Jesus is portrayed as a homeless migrant, Matthew depicts him living in a house in Bethlehem, where the magi visit and present their gifts:

2.11 On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary, his mother, and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh (καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν εἶδον τὸ παιδίον μετὰ Μαρίας τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ πεσόντες προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ καὶ ἀνοίξαντες τοὺς θησαυροὺς αὐτῶν προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δῶρα, χρυσὸν καὶ λίβανον καὶ σμύρναν).

After fleeing to Egypt and returning, his family settles in Nazareth.

2.22 But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. 23 There he made his home in a town called Nazareth (καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ), so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazarene.’

Later, following his time with John the Baptist, adult Jesus moves back to Galilee and becomes a resident of Capernaum.

4.13 He left Nazareth and made his home in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali (καὶ καταλιπὼν τὴν Ναζαρὰ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς Καϕαρναοὺμ τὴν παραθαλασσίαν ἐν ὁρίοις Ζαβουλὼν καὶ Νεϕθαλίμ).

Only in Matthew is Jesus associated with the verb κατοικέω (‘to make his home/dwell’), ³⁰ thus emphasizing a strong connection to Capernaum, eventually referred to as ‘his own city’ by Matthew (εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν, Mt. 9.1). This house in 4.13 becomes the gravitational center for Jesus, to which he repeatedly returns. This is particularly evident in chapter 17: In 13.53, Jesus leaves an unspecified town and, after some time, eventually returns to Capernaum (17.24–27), entering the house (εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν), where several conversations take place before Jesus leaves Galilee and his house permanently, heading towards Jerusalem (19.1–21.11). ³¹

Between chapters 4 and 17, there are also numerous scenes that refer to Jesus’s house: When Jesus returns ‘to his city’, in chapter 9, a paralyzed man ‘is brought to him’ (προσϕέρω αὐτῷ, 9.2). Whether this scene occurs on the street or in a house (as in Mark and Luke) is unspecified. Afterward, Jesus ‘leaves from there’ and comes to the tax booth, where he calls Matthew (9.9). The Gospel author opens the scene like his source Mark; the banquet, however, takes place ‘in the house’ (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ) known in the town as Jesus’s location, for multiple groups and individuals come there to find him: ³²

9.10 Many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with Jesus and his disciples (πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἐλθόντες συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ)

9.11: When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples (καὶ ἰδόντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ)

9.14: Then the disciples of John came to him, saying (τότε προσέρχονται αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου λέγοντες)

9.18: While he was saying these things to them, suddenly a leader came (ἐλθών) in and knelt before him, saying (ἄρχων εἷς ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων)

Tax collectors, sinners, Pharisees, disciples of John, and a town official all come there to eat with and talk to Jesus and his disciples. Rather than by a sudden change in location (like in Mark), the transition at the end of the scene is motivated by the story of the town official. They all know where to find Jesus—a narrative indication that the mentioned house must be a house strongly associated with Jesus, not with the tax collector. But unlike Mark, Matthew hasn’t introduced a specific house and established it as Jesus’s ‘home base’. Quite the opposite, the identification is given on the narrative level by simply stating that Jesus moved to Capernaum. Only after moving there is the calling of his first disciples narrated (Mt. 4.18–22), and the house of Peter is mentioned even later (Mt. 8.14–17). Michael Theobald argues that the house in 9.10 must be the house of Peter because this is the only house introduced in the narrative—ignoring the Capernaum introduction in chapter 4. ³³ In the following pericopes, there are no textual clues that would associate any of the other houses with Peter’s. After the healing of the town official’s daughter (9.23–25), Jesus returns and enters ‘the house’, where the blind men, who had already met him on the way (9.27), come to him.

9.28 When he entered the house, the blind men came to him (ἐλθόντι δὲ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ τυϕλοί).

Following this episode, a possessed man is brought to him:

9.32 After they had gone away, a demon-possessed man who was mute was brought to him (Αὐτῶν δὲ ἐξερχομένων ἰδοὺ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ ἄνθρωπον κωϕὸν δαιμονιζόμενον).

Both terms, προσέρχομαι and προσϕέρω + dative, are used almost technically in Matthew, repeatedly indicating that people come to Jesus, into the house. In Mt. 2.11 the magi enter the house and bring gifts to Jesus (2.11: καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν … προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δῶρα). In Mt. 8.5, as soon as Jesus has returned to Capernaum, ‘the centurion comes to him’. The house is not explicitly mentioned, but Matthew could have taken it from the similar introduction in Mk 2.1, where it says that ‘it became known that he was in the house’. In the tax collectors’ banquet scene in Mt. 9.14, John’s disciples ‘come to him’ into the house as another group. After the healings in chapter 9, Jesus goes into all the towns and villages of Galilee (9.35–12.21). Then, another possessed person ‘is brought to’ Jesus (12.22: προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ). That this refers to a house is evident from the narrative: After the healing of the possessed, there are several rounds of conversation before they are interrupted in 12.46 because Jesus’s mother and brothers stand ‘outside’ (ἔξω), and, in 13.1, it is reported that ‘Jesus leaves the house’ (ἐξελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῆς οἰκίας) to go to the sea. Likewise in Matthew’s special material, the explanation of the parable of the weeds (13.36) is set inside a house: Returning from the sea, Jesus enters the house again and his disciples come to him (‘Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples approached him, saying’ [Τότε ἀϕεὶς τοὺς ὄχλους ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν. καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ λέγοντες]). Mt. 15.12 may also be located in Jesus’s house, when it says that his disciples come to him to speak with him (προσελθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ). Although the house is not mentioned here, the source in Mark (7.17) reads ‘he entered the house’ (εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον). The same applies to 18.1: Since 17.25, Jesus and his disciples have been in the house; then in 18.1, it says, ‘At that time the disciples came to Jesus’ (προσῆλθον οἱ μαθηταὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ), while the source in Mk 9.33 reads explicitly ‘in the house’ (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ). Also, Matthew’s version of the healing of the paralytic (‘in his own town’) does not mention a house (9.2: ‘And some people were carrying to him [προσέϕερον αὐτῷ] a paralyzed man’), whereas Mk 2.1–3 and Lk. 5.19 do. Both syntagmas seem to bear such a strong connotation of ‘in the house’ that Matthew can drop the explicit reference to a house he read of in his source.

Not related to the house are these προσέρχομαι/προσϕέρω + dative passages: 5.1; 15.30; 17.7 (mountain); 14.15 (field); 17.14, 19 (on the way), as well as the passages outside the Galilean section (19.3–28.20). In 26.7, 17, Jesus is in the house in Bethany (προσέρχομαι). 14.35 is located in the land of Gennesaret; based on the subsequent statement, ‘when the people of that place recognized him’, it is unlikely to refer to Capernaum. Consequently, neither the προσϕέρω in 14.35 nor the προσέρχομαι in 15.1 (when the Pharisees and scribes come to Jesus, without the location being specified) would be related to the house in Capernaum. Similarly, in 17.19—after the healing of the boy with epilepsy—the disciples come to Jesus ‘when they were alone.’ However, since 17.24 explicitly mentions the arrival in Capernaum, v. 19 likely does not refer to the house. The other instances of προσϕέρω, 18.24 (parable), 19.13 (on the way to Jerusalem), and 22.19, also no longer relate to the house.

If προσέρχομαι and, to a lesser degree, προσϕέρω + dative hold such a technical meaning in Matthew, then the summary in 4.23, which introduces the Galilee chapter, might also hint at Jesus’s house, where it says that all the sick were brought to him. The same applies to the scene following the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (8.16): ‘That evening they brought to him (προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ) many who were possessed by demons’. Here too, unlike in Mark and Luke, the house does not have to be identified as Peter’s house. While Mark explicitly mentions the crowd ‘at the door’ (1.33), in Matthew the transition to the following scene implies at least one relocation: ‘Now when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side [of the sea]’ (8.18). This construction of the narrative in 8.14–18 makes it unlikely to read just one location. Thus, it is possible to read verses 16–17 as also relocated from Peter’s house to Jesus’s house. Peter’s house (8.14) is, alongside the house of Simon the leper in Bethany (26.6) and the unnamed town official in Capernaum (9.23), the only specified house besides Jesus’s (2.11, 23; 4.13). All other houses are likely located in Capernaum at the narrative level (9.10, 28; 13.1, 36; 17.25) (similarly Luz 1990: 43; see also 2002: 169–70).

Not every house, nor every occurrence of προσέρχομαι and προσϕέρω + dative, must be read as a reference to Jesus’s house. However, distinct patterns can be identified in Matthew’s use of these spatial markers compared to Mark and Luke. For Matthew, Jesus is less the itinerant preacher of Luke. Heinz Giesen writes:

Specifically, Jesus settled in Capernaum. However, we learn nothing about whether he had a permanent residence there. Since Jesus acts as an itinerant prophet, though, it is more likely that he occasionally stayed in a house belonging to his followers. For example, one might think of the house of Simon Peter’s mother-in-law, whom he heals of a fever in Mt. 8.14–15/Mk 1.20 (Giesen 2001: 36, own translation). ³⁴

Giesen’s ‘for example’, however, obscures the fact that Simon’s house is the only one to which this description applies. The narrative of the ‘itinerant preacher’, which is primarily derived from Luke, overshadows a reading of the text of Matthew (and Mark). For Matthew, Jesus resembles more a commuting teacher who has a fixed home base in Capernaum that is well known to most and where people come with their concerns. Unlike the house of Simon and Andrew in Mark, this house does not need to first be introduced; it is already established. From his house, Jesus repeatedly departs and returns.

Luke 5.29: Levi’s House

5.27 After this, he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax-collection station, and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ 28 And he got up, left everything, and followed him. 29 Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house (Καὶ ἐποίησεν δοχὴν μεγάλην Λευὶς αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ), and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others reclining at the table with them. 30 The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples … 33 Then they said to him … 6.1 One Sabbath while Jesus was going through some grain fields …

Unlike the other two Gospels, Luke goes to greater lengths to specify the tax collector’s house by first emphasizing that Levi is setting up the banquet and, second, by not establishing a strong association between Jesus and any specific house. In general, houses are more prominent in Luke than in Matthew and Mark: The distribution of οἰκία, οἶκος, and κατοικέω in the synoptic Gospels (Mark: 18, 13, 0; Matthew: 25, 10, 4; Luke: 24, 33, 2) initially shows that the narrower semantic field of ‘house/to settle’ has the greatest weight in Luke and the least weight in Matthew (Mark: 0.27%; Matthew: 0.21%; Luke: 0.30%). ³⁵

Right from the first pericopes, the prominent role of ‘the house’ as a focal point of the narrative becomes evident with the story oscillating between Zechariah’s house in the Judean hills (1.23, 40: ‘the house’ [οἶκος], 58: ‘the neighbors’ [οἱ περίοικοι], 65: ‘the neighbors’ [τοὺς περιοικοῦντας]) and Joseph’s house in Galilee (1.28: ‘And he came to her’ [εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτήν], 56: ‘the house’ [οἶκος]).

Jesus’s public ministry begins with a summary of his activities in the synagogues of Galilee (4.14–15), his inaugural sermon in Nazareth (4.16–30), and finally his arrival in Capernaum (4.31–41). ³⁶ After leaving the synagogue in Capernaum, Jesus enters Simon’s house, where he heals Simon’s mother-in-law (Lk. 4.38–39). Following numerous healings, Jesus departs to preach ‘in the synagogues of Judea’ (4.44). ³⁷ His ministry then unfolds by the Sea of Galilee, in an unspecified city (5.12–15), in the wilderness (5.16), and in an unnamed house in an unnamed town (5.17–26), culminating in the calling of Levi. It is often suggested that the tax station was near Capernaum, taxing border traffic between Herod’s territory and that of Philip, or at the lake, collecting fishing taxes ³⁸ —but Luke does not specify a location. Just as Capernaum can be anywhere in Galilee according to the Lukan geography, ³⁹ Levi’s tax station can be anywhere in Galilee. After this scene, Jesus teaches in a grainfield, in a synagogue, on a mountain, and on a plain (6.1–49), with Capernaum (7.1–10) mentioned as the next city. ⁴⁰ But Jesus does not dwell there; instead, Luke takes the reader instantaneously to the next place, to Nain (7.11–16), followed by another unspecified location where Jesus is invited to the house of a Pharisee. This pattern continues throughout Luke. Apart from summary references to towns and villages and a few place names (the city of the Gerasenes, 8.26–39; Bethsaida, 9.10–17), there is no further mention of a return to Capernaum or Simon’s house.

Whether ‘to return’ (ὑποστρέϕω) in 8.37, 40 indicates a return to Capernaum as a technical term for Luke is questionable, given the minor significance of the location. The theme of return is important for Luke, and ὑποστρέϕω is used exclusively by him in the Gospels (21x; additionally 11x in Acts, and once each in Galatians, Hebrews, and 2 Peter). However, it would be an overinterpretation to read this as a return to Capernaum at this point (Capernaum is mentioned only once more, in the woe oracle of 10.15, alongside Chorazin and Bethsaida), as Bovon seems to imply despite his aforementioned qualification: ‘Jesus hat seine Heimat verlassen,… Nach einem Wunder kehrt er zurück…’ (‘Jesus has left his home …’) (Bovon 1989: 446). ⁴¹ The ‘city’ (4.31) can hardly be regarded as ‘Jesus’s home’ in Luke’s account.

Instead, Jesus enters several other (partly unspecified) houses (4.38: Simon; 5.18: unknown; 5.29: Levi; 7.36: Pharisee; 8.19: unknown; 8.51: Jairus; 10.38: Mary and Martha; ⁴² 11.37: Pharisee; 14.1: leader of the Pharisees; 19.5: Zacchaeus; 22.12: the Upper Room; and then 24.29: Emmaus; 24.36: Jerusalem). Unlike the other evangelists, Luke emphasizes Jesus’s journeying and thus simultaneously enhances the sense of placelessness. ⁴³ Jesus hardly ever returns to a house or a city.

‘The House’, Itinerants, and Homeowners

Behind the three distinct identifications of ‘the house of Jesus’ in the synoptic Gospels lie three different concepts of community, each reflecting unique ecclesiological models. In Mark, the house functions as part of an ancient friendship system, suggesting a network of mutual support for itinerant missionaries. This framework envisions Jesus’s followers as operating within a local center that serves as a base while also engaging in outreach to a broader proclamation periphery. Such a model resembles the church in Antioch or, more generally, Pauline missionary activities as described in Acts (11.19–30; 13.1–14.28; 15.36–18.22), where a central hub (like Jerusalem, Antioch, Damascus) supported itinerant missionaries and facilitated connections across communities. The Markan portrayal emphasizes a dynamic network of relationships that provided logistical and emotional support to wandering preachers.

In Matthew, the house represents a more settled model of Jesus’s followers, who focus on spreading Jesus’s message within their immediate social environment. This reflects the reality of established local congregations, such as those in Thessalonica, Corinth, Philippi, or Rome, Ephesus (1 Tim.) or Crete (Tit.) where the mission was rooted in local stability rather than extensive itinerant outreach. Matthew’s focus on the house as a central location for teaching and fellowship underscores the importance of these stationary communities in the early Jesus movement.

In Luke, the house is closely tied to the concept of wandering missionaries who rely on a broader network of supporters. This is evident in passages like Lk. 5.27–32 and 19.6, where hosts are highlighted as critical to Jesus’s ministry (but also Martha in Lk. 10.38–42 and Lydia in Philippi, Acts 16.14–15). El Mansy observes that Luke places significant emphasis on the role of hosts and benefactors within the community. These individuals provided the material and social security necessary to sustain the early communities (see El Mansy 2024: 320). Luke’s depiction aligns with other early Christian texts, such as Didache 11–13, that underscore the dependence of wandering missionaries on the hospitality and generosity of local supporters. As Halvor Moxnes notes, such a system of financial and social backing was indispensable for the survival and expansion of the movement (1994: 384). But, as the analysis of ‘the house’ in this article set out, it is only one of a variety of community models, a variety that could sometimes lead to conflicts, as John Dominic Crossan (1997) has shown. This diversity in the portrayal of ‘the house’ reflects not only theological emphases but also the social realities of the early Christian communities.

Distant Reading: Spatial Markers

The unique use of the word ‘house’ in the three synoptic Gospels goes beyond a mere detail; it encapsulates a broader conceptual framework. Further analysis enhances initial observations from close reading by incorporating digital distant reading techniques, which uncover distinct patterns in the use of spatial markers across the three Gospels. ⁴⁴

Distant reading, a counter concept to traditional close reading in literary studies, was first popularized by Franco Moretti in 2013. Alternative designations include ‘macroanalysis’ (Jockers 2013), ‘data analysis’ or ‘data mining’ (North 2017: 110). This approach employs computational and quantitative techniques to analyze vast collections of texts, enabling researchers to identify patterns, trends, and structures across literary corpora. In contrast to close reading, distant reading often focuses on large-scale analysis but can also be useful for understanding textual patterns in smaller corpora or text samples (Lemercier and Zalc 2019: 30). One way to integrate close and distant reading in text-based research is to examine whether interpretations or assumptions developed through close readings of individual texts are supported by data gathered from a larger corpus or a wider set of variables (see also Piper 2018: 10). In the second part of this article, I will adopt this approach to examine the distribution of spatial markers in the Gospels.

It could be shown above ⁴⁵ that the distribution of οἰκία and related terms indicates that this word field carries greater significance in Luke than in the other Gospels. How does the distribution of spatial markers change when we consider more than just references to houses, though? When reading the Gospels, it may initially appear that space and geography play a more prominent role in Luke than in the other two synoptic Gospels—a view supported by Mikeal C. Parsons (1998: 158 n. 14), who notes that Luke/Acts contains a higher frequency of spatially oriented terms compared to other New Testament writings. ⁴⁶ This impression is nuanced when the analysis expands beyond references to houses to include approximately 1,000 spatial markers drawn from various semantic domains. ⁴⁷ Based on the total word count of each Gospel, spatial references account for a smaller proportion of the vocabulary in Luke (14.67%) compared to Mark (14.98%) and Matthew (14.96%), indicating a less prominent use of spatial language in Luke overall.

Rather than relying on a single statistical value—such as the absolute number or percentage of spatial markers—it is more informative to consider multiple metrics. One useful measure is the relative frequency per chapter, that is, the number of spatial markers in relation to the total word count. While it is acknowledged that chapter divisions are arbitrary and that the synoptic Gospels do not consistently present corresponding pericopes in the same order, this metric nonetheless provides an approximate indication of the prominence of spatial references across the narrative and, thus, serves as the basis for the following analyses and visualizations.

Before examining the distributions of spatial markers from specific semantic domains (architecture, place names, verbs of motion) across the synoptic Gospels, a general overview is presented using a violin plot. Introduced by Jerry Hintze and Ray Nelson (1998), the violin plot combines the summary statistics of a box plot (like the data’s distribution, central tendency, and spread) with a representation of the data’s distribution density. The plot (Fig. 1) displays the percentage of spatial markers per chapter (y-axis) for each of the Gospels and Acts (x-axis). In the case of Matthew, for instance, the plot shows that, on average, approximately 15% of the words in a chapter are spatial references (as indicated by the horizontal white line denoting the mean). Most chapters cluster around 14%, as illustrated by the central bulge, while a few chapters fall below 12% and a slightly greater number exceed 18%, as indicated by the extended tails along the y-axis.

Figure 1.

Violin Plot of the Percentages of Spatial Markers.

A comparison of the violin plots for each book reveals that the mean proportion of spatial markers (indicated by the horizontal white line) is slightly higher in Mark and Matthew (15.26% and 15.27%, respectively) than in Luke (14.72%). As previously noted, overall percentages confirm that Matthew and Mark employ spatial vocabulary more frequently than Luke. This pattern also holds at the chapter level, where the average frequency of spatial markers in Luke remains below that of both Mark and Matthew.

However, beyond mean values, the distributional spread—measured by the standard deviation—provides additional insight. The standard deviation quantifies how much individual observations deviate from the mean: A smaller value indicates that data points are more closely clustered around the average, while a larger value suggests greater variability. In this case, Luke exhibits a smaller standard deviation (2.7) compared to Mark (2.9) and Matthew (3.5), suggesting a more consistent use of spatial language across chapters. For comparison, Acts shows a similar consistency (2.6), while John displays greater variation (3.4). Visually, this consistency is reflected in the shape of the violin plots: Luke’s distribution appears more compact and symmetrical, in contrast to the broader, more irregular ‘vase-like’ form seen in Mark or the more elongated shape in Matthew. This suggests that, while Mark and Matthew occasionally emphasize spatial elements more heavily in certain chapters, Luke maintains a steadier use of spatial references throughout his narrative.

The distribution as the story unfolds reveals that spatial markers are used at very different frequencies in individual chapters (Fig. 2). Reducing these to a trend line, a pattern emerges: The significance of spatial markers in Matthew and Mark is initially high and then decreases, whereas Luke remains almost consistent, albeit noticeably below the level of the other two.

Figure 2.

Distribution of Spatial Markers.

When we examine individual categories, the picture becomes even more nuanced: While the trend lines of all three Gospels begin with a comparable frequency of architectural or building-related references (Fig. 3), Mark and Matthew exhibit a (slightly) upward trend as their narratives progress. In contrast, the prominence of such references in Luke gradually decreases over the course of the text.

Figure 3.

Distribution of Architecture References.

The distribution of place names (Fig. 4) decreases significantly over the course of the narrative in Matthew, declines moderately in Luke, and remains relatively constant in Mark. Toponymic references in Luke account for 0.63% of his total vocabulary, positioning him between Mark (0.57%) and Matthew (0.69%) in terms of relative frequency.

Figure 4.

Distribution of Toponymic References.

All these individual observations together present an initially counterintuitive picture: while Jesus’s spatial movement seems more prominent in Luke than in the other Gospels (as suggested by the great insertion of the so called ‘travel narrative’, Lk. 9.51–18.14/19.27), spatial markers are actually minimized at the same time. The spatial references are not all related to Jesus and his movements on the narrative level but are distributed across all text genres (narratives, miracle stories, parables, discourse material, summaries, etc.). Nevertheless, the presence and density of spatial markers contribute to the ‘textual atmosphere’ and evoke the readers’ spatial understanding, which serves as the backdrop against which the activities of the characters are interpreted. It could be said that Luke portrays Jesus as a rootless itinerant preacher—a portrayal of increasing rootlessness over the course of the Gospel. Specific spatial markers (such as toponymic and architectural references) decrease more significantly than less specific verbs of movement (Fig. 5) or adverbials and other indeclinable word forms, which either remain constant or even slightly increase. ⁴⁸

Figure 5.

Distribution of Motion Verb References.

Even though the spatial markers in the other Gospels consistently show a higher frequency than in Luke, they do not dominate the narrative of Jesus in the same way, as they often involve a greater use of stable spatial references (such as place names and architectural terms), which effectively ‘ground’ Jesus. It remains important to emphasize that these observations, derived through distant reading, reflect textual patterns and tendencies. While they cannot account for every individual phenomenon, they can help illuminate potential connections between specific observations. The hermeneutical implications of these findings will be considered in the concluding section.

Conclusion

These short remarks on the use and distribution of different kinds of spatial markers support the initial assumption that the three synoptic Gospels use distinct patterns of spatial markers to characterize Jesus’s movements. The traditional image of Jesus as an itinerant charismatic preacher is not equally supported across the synoptic Gospels. In fact, such a portrayal of Jesus is most prominent in Luke, where Jesus moves through various towns and is welcomed into different homes, such as Levi’s, thus illustrating the theme of leaving everything behind. In contrast, Matthew depicts Jesus less as a wandering preacher and more as a commuter. In large parts of the Galilee narrative, he operates from a fixed residence that is widely known as an open home or a private practice. This residence also serves as a setting for hosting meals, such as the one for Matthew the tax collector. Mark, on the other hand, blends both the itinerant ministry and the concept of a ‘home base’. However, this base is not Jesus’s own house but the home of his first disciples, which serves as a well-known meeting place and a private retreat. He both invites people—like Levi—and tries to evade the public eye.

The widely held view of Jesus as a wandering preacher is rooted in Luke’s account, which is often used for interpreting the other synoptic narratives. Yet, as we work with a small text corpus like the synoptic Gospels, close reading alone allows us ‘to capture text patterns quickly’ such as the recurring words for houses. However, focusing on such specific words can distort the broader narrative, and dominant interpretive patterns from one text might overshadow unique characteristics in other texts. This is where distant reading methods provide a valuable counterbalance, revealing features distinctive to each Gospel.

The short analyses presented in part II have identified some preliminary distinctive patterns in how spatial references are distributed within the Gospels. These analyses highlighted, among other things, that Luke deviates notably from the expected pattern: Although he demonstrates a consistent use of spatial vocabulary (as shown in the violin plot, Fig. 1), these references are not as dominant as anticipated. Furthermore, Matthew displays a striking simultaneity of architectural references (Fig. 3) and relative spatial markers (motion verbs, Fig. 5), alongside a noticeable decline in toponymic vocabulary (Fig. 4). Mark, by contrast, aligns in general with Luke, but in some respects also with Matthew. These findings challenge the assumption that a single narrative model—such as the image of Jesus as a wandering preacher—adequately describes all three synoptic portrayals. They also illustrate a central tension in textual analysis: Do patterns confirm interpretations, or do interpretations guide what patterns we notice?

Stanley Fish famously argued that interpretation precedes pattern recognition. In his critique of the digital humanities, he strengthened this point: ‘The direction of my inference is critical: first the interpretive hypothesis and then the formal pattern, which attains the status of noticeability only because an interpretation already in place is picking it out’ (Fish 2012). From this perspective, our initial focus on spatial markers already shaped the outcome: We saw what we were predisposed to see.

In contrast, Stephen Ramsay, in his engagement with Fish, emphasizes that the reverse approach can also be legitimate: ‘Prior interpretations undoubtedly define in advance the regime of our noticings (the elaboration of that idea is one of Fish’s greatest contributions to theoretical discourse), but surely that is not absolute’ (Ramsay 2023: 131). Distant reading methods, in particular, can surface patterns that were not anticipated—such as Matthew’s distinct architectural vocabulary or Luke’s unexpectedly moderate use of spatial markers. Without some form of interpretation (the initial assumption), we would not even know what to look for; we might not intuitively focus on spatial markers in the text. But by extending the analysis to all potential words, distant reading methods can uncover previously unnoticed or uninterpreted patterns (part II). These patterns, in turn, can guide us toward deeper investigations through distant and close reading (part I), helping to connect isolated observations into a more coherent understanding.

This is similar to what Anthony Kenny stated in his Stylometric Study of the New Testament: stylometry—and here we might add, distant reading methods—operates like aerial photography in archaeology: It maps the landscape, identifies patterns rather than details, and can then hand over to the archaeologist, who digs deeper into specific areas of interest (Kenny 1986: 116–17, 122). In this study, distant reading helped identify patterns in spatial references; close reading then enabled us to dig into how these patterns shape each Gospel’s portrayal of Jesus. By combining both approaches, we begin to uncover—not just a house in the text—but the complex narrative architectures that frame Jesus’s movements across the Gospels.