the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel

they are portrayed as robbers, murderers and sinners in the rabbinic writings. 31 It is because
tax collectors defrauded people on behalf of the chief tax collectors whom they served, and
associate with Gentiles as occasionally being employees of gentile rulers. Moreover, their
vocation is taken to rob the Temple of its dues, viz, tithes and temple taxation. 32 For these
reasons, they were classified with a group of people who were hated and despised by all Jews,
still more, were deprived of civic rights and not allowed to be a judge or a witness in a court
of law. 33 Even though the appearance of the tax collector in the temple to pray would have
astonished Jesus’ audience who had detested and despised them, unlike this, Luke’s readers
would have taken quite positive imagery toward them, because of the preceding portrayals,
especially in Jesus’ association with tax collectors (Luke 5:30; 15:1). 34 Tax collectors
throughout Luke’s Gospel play a role as “models of prayer, repentance, conversion and belief
in Jesus,” 35
because of the contrasting between tax collectors and Pharisees. On the literary
level, Luke’s readers would have taken quite a different stance of both characters than did
Jesus’ audience.
There is some ambiguity as to how to read
, on account of variants in the
36 38
textual tradition, namely, , , ,
31. m. Tohar. 7.6; m. Baba. Qamma. 10.1-2; m. Nedarim. 3.4.
32. Donahue, “Tax Collector,” ABD, vol. 6, 337-38; idem, “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at
Identification,” CBQ 33 (1971), 39-61; W.O. Walker, “Jesus and the Tax Collectors,” JBL 97 (1978), 221-38; P.
Perkins, “Taxes in the New Testament,” JRE 12 (1984), 182-200; A.M. Okorie, “The Characterization of the Tax
Collectors in the Gospel of Luke,” CurTM 22 (1995), 27-32; Hyam Maccogy, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual
Purity System and Its Place in Judaism (Cambridge University Press, 1999); idem, “How Unclean Were Tax-
Collectors?” BTB 31 (2001), 60-63.
33. m. Baba. Qamma. 10.1-2; m. Nedarim. 3.4; b. Sanh. 25b. Although there is an argument that everything tax
collector touched becomes ritually unclean on the basis of m. Tohar. 7.6 and m. Hagigah 3.6, it is fairly turned
out by Maccoby that disapproval of tax-collector was due to a moral problem rather than ritual purity, correcting
the misinterpretation of Mishnah passage. See m. Tohoroth 7.6 and m. Hagigah 3.6. “If taxgatherers entered a
house all that is within it becomes unclean; even if a gentile was with them, they may be believed if they say
‘We did not enter,’ but (if a gentile was with them) they may not be believed entered a house only that part is
unclean that was trodden by the feet of the thieves” (m. Tohoroth 7.6). “If tax collectors entered a house (so too
if thieves restored stolen vessels) they may be deemed trustworthy if they say ‘We have not touched” (m.
Hagigah 3.6). Maccogy, “How Unclean Were Tax-Collectors?”, 60.
34. The above instance’ else, tax collectors were baptized by John (Luke 3:12-13; 7:29), one of the Twelve,
Matthew is a tax collector (Luke 6:15), and “the lost” in Luke 15:3-32 seems to intimate tax collects along with
sinners in Luke 15:1-2.
35. Okorie, “The Characterization of the Tax Collectors in the Gospel of Luke,” 32; Forbes, The God of Old:
The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel, 213. Okorie concludes that the contrasting
characterization between tax collectors and Pharisees gives insights into our understanding with the abundant
graciousness of the gospel and its power to transform people’s lives.
36. Nestle-Aland 26th and 27th, A, K, W, X, Δ, Π, 063 ƒ
148
13 , 28, 33 vid , 565, 700, 1009, 1010, 1079, 1195, 1216,