Samaritans in the Context of Multicultural Coexistence Society (Japan)
By Tomohiro Omiya, Ph.D. (Associate Professor, Nagoya Gakuin University)
Introduction
The year 1990 was a turning point in the history of Japan’s ethnic diversity. In this year, the
immigration control law was changed. The revised law gave preference to unskilled workers, who had
previously not been allowed entry, as well as provided a separate category for Nikkeijin (the Japanese
Diaspora: Japanese emigrants and their descendants). As a result, more than 310,000 Brazilian Nikkeijin
entered Japan to work as unskilled, temporary workers. They are now the third largest group of foreign
citizens and their rapidly growing ethnic communities are present in several cities.
The history of Nikkeijin is full of hardships. Since the late 19th century, the Japanese government
officially sponsored emigration programs to alleviate the pressure of overpopulation and the effects of the
depressed economy in rural areas, and hence many Japanese left the country, with a significant number
going to Brazil. Currently, Brazilian Nikkeijin are the largest ethnic Japanese community outside Japan
(about 1.5 million). Most of the early Japanese immigrants in Brazil worked as peasants and thus suffered
from low living standards. Moreover, in the 1930s, the Brazilian government forced assimilation by
prohibiting Japanese language education and publication. This posed challenges for the first generation of
Nikkeijin in handing down their culture and language to the next generation. After the hardships their
parents had experienced, the second and third generation Nikkeijin became successful in the agricultural
economy and other fields and gained the respect of the Brazilian population.
Beginning in the 1980s, the second and third generations of Nikkeijin started returning to Japan to seek
better employment. The push factor was Brazil’s foreign debt and hyper-inflation that had continued for
more than 30 years. The pull factor was Japan’s growing economy, with Japanese companies facing a
shortage of workers willing to do the so-called three ‘K’ jobs (kitsui [difficult], kitanai [dirty], and kiken
[dangerous]). However, their lives in Japan are not easy either. They suffer from what they interpret as
instances of Japanese-speaking native residents’ prejudice and misunderstanding. They are labeled as
“foreigners” and are not warmly accepted by local communities. The children often suffer from bullying at
school. Thus, the Nikkeijin do not feel at home,” even though they reside in their original home country.
This paper attempts to recapture the significance of the Samaritans in Luke-Acts from the perspective
of Nikkeijin, those who experienced “returned migration.” The approach of this paper is threefold: (1)
clarify the social position of the Samaritans in the world behind the text (Luke-Acts), (2) clarify the role of
the Samaritans in the world of the text, and (3) contextualize the Lukan portrait of the Samaritans with our
challenge of forming multicultural coexistence society in Japan. In this paper, I argue that, by equitably
including the Samaritans in their community before starting their mission to non-Jews (God-fearers), the
early Christian community took a step toward becoming a “contact zone,” that is, social space where
“peoples geographically and historically separated come into contact with each other and establish ongoing
relations, usually involving conditions of coercion, radical inequality, and intractable conflict.”1
1
Mary Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (2nd edition; New York: Routledge,
2007), 6–7.
1
1. Samaritans in “the World behind the Text”
How did Jewish people in the Second Temple period view the Samaritans—as resident aliens in the
land given to them or as one of their subgroups? In this section, I argue that common Jewish people
recognized the Samaritans as an anomalous group of Jewish people.
1.1. Samaritans as “Foolish Crowd” (Sir 50:25–26)
The oldest reference to the Samaritans in the Second Temple Jewish literature is in the Book of Sirach
(second century B.C.E.). The phrase in Sir 50:25–26 criticizes the people of Seir (i.e., the Edomites or
Idumaeans in LXX), the Philistines, and the Samaritans, with the most hatred being directed toward the
Samaritans. They are called “not even a nation (ἔθνος),” “a foolish crowd inhabited in Shechem” (ὁ λαὸς ὁ
μωρὸς ὁ κατοικῶν ἐν Σικιμοις), and “a crowd (ὁ λαός).” This demonstrates that the Samaritans were
regarded not as a nation independent from Israel but as a subgroup of the Israelites.2
The Jews in that time execrated the Samaritans as fools, as seen in the Testament of Levi (second
century B.C.E.) in which Shechem was called “the city of the senseless (ἀσύνετος)” (7:2). For Josephus
(first century C.E.), the name “Shechem” itself was a place “inhabited by the apostates (ἀποστάτις) from
the Jewish nation” (Josephus, Ant. 11.340). The words “fool,” “senseless,” and “apostate” are labeling
attached to the Samaritans by the majority of Jews in the Second Temple period.
1.2. Samaritans as Opportunists (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities)
Although we realize that the Samaritans were scorned in the Jewish world, we cannot understand the
rationale behind their scorn. One clue, however, is provided by Josephus (37–95/96 C.E.). Despite referring
to the Samaritans in various contexts in his writings, he is not familiar with the history of their religious
tradition, and his comments reflect the common Jewish view of the Samaritans in his time. At the end of his
summary history of the Samaritans, he refers to them as follows:
… but they alter their attitude according to circumstance and, when they see the Jews prospering, call
them their kinsmen, on the ground that they are descended from Joseph and are related to them
through their origin from him, but, when they see the Jews in trouble, they say that they have nothing
whatever in common with them nor do these have any claim of friendship or race, and they declare
themselves to be aliens of another race. (tr. by Ralph Marcus; Josephus, Ant. 9.290b)
At the end of the ninth volume of his Antiquites, Josephus mentions the origin and history of the
Samaritans primarily on the basis of 2 Kgs 17 (9.277–290). According to him, the Samaritans were those
transported by the Assyrians from “Chûthaioi” in Persia to Samaria, where they converted to the religion of
the Israelites. He reports, “[t]hese same rites have continued in use even to this day among those who are
According to M. Hengel, the status of the Samaritans is περίοικοι, but the Idumaeans and Jews are ἔθνος
after the conquest of Macedonian colonists. The word περίοικος means that the inhabitants of an area
depend on another area. Strabo mentions the Jews, Idumaeans, Gazanians, and Azoteans, but not the
Samaritans (Strabo, Geography 17. 2. 2 [C 749]). M. Hengel, Juden, Griechen und Barbaren: Aspekte der
Hellenierung des Judentums in vorchristlicher Zeit (Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1976), ???[Japanese
translation; 29].
2
2
called Chûthaioi (Cuthim) in the Hebrew tongue, and Samareitai (Samaritans) by the Greeks” (tr. by Ralph
Marcus; Josephus, Ant. 9.290a). For Josephus, the Samaritans are the proselytes (προσήλυτος), the Gentiles
who have become full Jews.3 To be a proselyte, one has to be circumcised, offer a sacrifice, and keep
Sabbath and dietary laws. Josephus mentions that, even though the Samaritans were not allowed to join the
Jerusalem temple’s reconstruction after their return from exile, they were not expelled from worship at the
temple (Ant. 9.84–116; 11.84–119; see especially 11.87).
In two other exemplary episodes (11.302–47; 12.257–64), Josephus defines the nature (φύσις) of the
Samaritans as opportunist. He notes that when the Jews were honored, the Samaritans professed their
kinship with Jews, but when Jews faced difficulties, they denied any kinship. According to Josephus, when
Alexander the Great treated the Jews well, the Samaritans expected to be treated in the same manner
(11:302–47). However, when King Antiochus IV Epiphanes oppressed the Jews, they denied their kinship
with the Jews (12.257–64).
A conflict took place between the Jews and Samaritans regarding the legitimacy of the temple built in
Mount Gerzim. A string of episodes in Ant. 11.302–47 shows the cause for the unorthodoxy of this temple
and its priests. Manasseh, a brother of the high priest Jaddua, was expelled from Jerusalem for marrying a
daughter of Sanballat, Samaria’s governor during the reign of the last Persian king Darius. Sanballat
promised Manasseh (his son-in-law) that he would build him a temple in Gerizim. The priests and Israelites
who married a foreigner deserted to Manasseh (312). Sanballat, who switched sides to Alexander the Great
after Darius was defeated, built the temple in Gerizim with Alexander’s approval. Josephus only briefly
mentions in Ant. 11.324 the construction of the Gerizim temple. However, he gives a detailed account of
the temple’s destruction by John Hyrcanus in 13.275–83 (cf. War 1.63). Clearly, the destruction, rather than
the construction, of the Gerizim temple was a more vivid and happier occasion for him and the Jews of that
period.4
To sum up Josephus’ view of the Samaritans as presented in his Antiquites, the Samaritans are regarded
as a heterogeneity group among the Jewish people. On the one hand, he looks down on the Samaritans as
opportunists who change sides with each situation, and he denies the legitimacy of their temple and priests
(cf. 13.74–9). On the other hand, the Samaritans were regarded as proselytes and admitted to the Jerusalem
temple if they so choose.
1.3. Samaritans as the Descendants of Intermarriage (4 Bar. ch.8)
4 Baruch (first half of the second century C.E.) reports another story on the origin of the Samaritans.
When the Jewish people returned from Babylon, Jeremiah ordered the men and women whose spouses
3
The foremost case in which many became Jew was the expansion of the land in the second century B.C.E.
under John Hyrcanus in Idumaea and Aristobulus I in Iturea (Josephus, Ant. 13.257; 15.253–4 [Idumaea];
13.318 [Iturea]).
4 After the destruction of the Gerizim temple by John Hyrcanus in second century BCE, the conflict
between the Jews who exclusively adherent to the Jerusalem temple and Samaritans become immovable.
According to Megillat Ta'anit 22 (written in Aramic in second century CE), fasting on “the day of Gerizim”
on which the Gerizim temple was destoryed is prohibited because the day of Gerizim is the day of the
destruction of the Gerizim temple and no Jews lament over its destruction by fasting. However we need to
be aware that we do not know that common Jews hate Samaritans because of the Gerizim temple.
3
were Babylonians not to cross over the River Jordan with them. However, going against this order, some
crossed the river with their foreign spouses. When this group was about to enter the city of Jerusalem,
Jeremiah and other leaders refused to allow them to enter the city. These people then returned to Babylon,
but they were refused entry by the Babylonians as well. Finally, they turned back and came to “a desert
place some distance from Jerusalem, and they built themselves a city and named it Samaria” (8.11).
In this book, the Jordan River is a line separating a land of the clean from one of the polluted others.
The west bank of the Jordan River was the clean land, so the first admonition to those whose spouses were
Babylonians was to stay on the polluted side of the river. Further, the city of Jerusalem was considered the
holiest city; hence, they were denied entry into this city. According to the writer of 4 Baruch, the
Samaritans were unclean people because they were descendants of intermarriage.5 The intention of the
command to separate from one’s foreign spouse is to prevent a holy land from being profaned by “the
pollutions of the gentiles of Babylon” (7:37) and keep “the works of Babylon behind” (8:1).
In this text, the Samaritans who dwell “in a desert place some distance from Jerusalem” but on the west
bank (holy land) are people who dwell in the wrong place, from the Jewish viewpoint. However, from the
Samaritans perspective, they are the people who can live in neither on the west bank (their roots) nor in
Babylon (the place where they grew up). They are definitely Jews but are unwelcome due to their history.
Up to this point, I have presented an overview of the image of the Samaritans in the early Jewish world
through several early Jewish writings. I questioned the widely accepted view based on the Gospel of John
(ch. 4) that the Jews despise the Samaritans because of the Gerizim temple. Rather, the difficulties which
the Samaritans experienced are due to intolerance toward and prejudice against heterogeneity among their
“race.” First, the Samaritans were somehow give the labels of “fool” (Sir), “senseless” (T. Levi), and
“apostates” (Josephus) in Jewish writings. Second, after they have been labeled so, they are labeled as Jews
with uncertain genealogy. Josephus mentions that the Samaritans changed their identity to survive critical
situations just as chameleons change colors to blend in. 4 Baruch mentions that the Samaritans are the
descendants of inter-marriage so they are unholy people in the holy land distinguished from other.6 It is
noteworthy that, although the Jewish writers regard the Samaritans as the people with uncertain genealogy,
5
The scene in Ezra and Nehemiah echoes here. In Ezra 9:10–11, because the land of Israel is a land of
unclean because of the peoples of the lands, intermarriage with “the people of the lands” is prohibited.
6 Daniel and Jonathan Boyarin argue that the Jewish history consists of three stages. In the first stage, the
Jewish people regard themselves as special among humanity, indeed as “the People,” and their land as
wonderful among lands, “the Land.” In the second stage, this form of life increasingly becomes untenable,
morally and politically, because they are in cultural, social, and political contact with other people (the
Hellenistic stage). Pauline Christianity and the retreat to Qumran are the examples of the solutions to this
cultural dilemma. The third stage is diasporic existence. The hostility to the Samaritans occurs in the
process of the first stage. The Samaritans are segregated as the uncertain Jews by the Jews who concern
their purity. According to them, the first stage of the history is “not very different in certain respects from
peoples in similar material conditions all over the world.” The trouble of Nikkeijin is the same as that of the
Samaritans. Facing multiculturalization and diversification of Japanese-ness, majority of Japanese
re-realize Japanese who born in Japan, speak Japanese as the first language, and have similar physical
feature as “the People (Japanese).” Then they become exclusive to Nikkeijin as “returned migration.”
Daniel and Jonathan Boyarin, “Diaspora: Generation and the Ground of Jewish Identity,” Critical Inquiry
19 (Summer 1993): 693-725 (esp. 722).
4
none of them put them outside the boundary of Jewishness.
When John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple in Gerizim in 128BCE, the level of hostility toward the
unholy people in the holy land (the Samaritans were mere one of them) escalated. However, the Jewish
hostility to the Samaritans had existed with no relation to the Gerizim temple.
2. Samaritans in “the World of the Text”
In the previous section, I have argued that the Samaritans were execrated and viewed as dubious people
in the Jewish world. In this section, while discussing four texts in which the Samaritans appear, I determine
how the Samaritans and the Christian community create a relationship with each other through the larger
story of Luke-Acts. The Samaritans appear in Matthew, John, and Luke-Acts in the New Testament (NT).
Luke and John depict the Samaritans as recipients of the gospel.7 Luke reveals a strategy of welcoming and
affirming the unsure, which conflicts with the others. I argue in this section that the early Christian
community affirms them by claiming the Samaritans as a part of their community.
2.1. Refusal of a Samaritan Village to Jesus (Luke 9:51–56): The Preview of the Samaritan Mission
At the beginning of a journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:15–19:27), a Samaritan village refuses to receive
Jesus. The village does so because the face of Jesus’ group set toward Jerusalem (v. 53) and not because
Jesus is recognized as a Galilean Jew. The refusal of the Samaritan village reflects the conflict between the
Samaritans and the Jews who are adherent exclusively to the Jerusalem temple, probably at the time when
the Gospel of Luke was written.
In v. 54, James and John said to Jesus, “Do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven
and consume them?” Their response to the Samaritans’ refusal echoes the episode where Elijah threatens
fire to fall on the messengers of Samaria’s king in 2Kgs 1:1–16. James and John expect Jesus to act like
Elijah, the “Man of God.” Furthermore, they expect Jesus to make a final break with the Samaritans (cf.
Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51).
Jesus “turned and rebuked them” (v. 55). Readers of the Gospel of Luke do not learn the reason for
Jesus’ rebuke in this scene. However, those who also read Acts will understand the meaning of this rebuke
in Acts 8. Jesus leaves open the possibility of a mission to the Samaritans after his ascension. John, one of
the two who has expected Jesus’ refusal of the Samaritans, later visits Samaria with Peter after Philip’s
success with the mission. John and Peter pray for them and lay hands on them so that they finally receive
the Holy Spirit. Thus, John becomes one of the missionaries to the Samaritans, turning his view of the
Samaritans from antagonism to friendliness. In this sense, he accomplishes “conversion.”8 Luke envisions,
7
Luke 9:52; 10:33; 17:11, 16; John 4:4, 5, 7, 9, 39, 40; 8:48; Acts 1:8; 8:1, 5, 9, 14, 15, 9:31; 15:3; cf. Matt
10:5.
8 C. H. Talbert’s and J. B. Green’s studies on the conversion in Luke-Acts are worth citing here. Talbert:
(1) The conversion in Acts is a moral and cognitive conversion. The moral conversion is concerned with sin
and forgiveness, and the cognitive one is concerned with the shift of worldview. (2) It involved a “turning
from” as well as a “turning to.” This means that in conversion one defines the old as wrong and the new as
right. (3) Conversion’s catalysts are miracles and preaching. (4) Its roots are in divine grace. (5) It results in
a continuing change of life. Talbert points out the parallels between these five elements of conversion
narratives in Acts and those in Jewish and the Greco-Roman literatures, and argues that these five elements
5
in the larger picture of Luke-Acts, that the conversion of John is inescapable in order to complete the
Samaritan mission.9
This scene is the preview of the Samaritan mission in Acts 8. The role of the scene is to convince the
readers that conversion to the gospel is inescapable for the mission.
2.2. The Parable of the Good Samaritans (Luke 10:25–37): Samaritans as Devout Law Observers
At the end of the discussion between a lawyer and Jesus regarding the practice of the Law, Jesus tells
this parable as his answer to the question, “Who is my neighbor?” The story is premised on the conflict
between the Jews and Samaritans so as to make it relevant to both the audience in the story and the first
audience of the Gospel. The audiences of (and also in) the narrative think that it is natural for the
Samaritans to leave dying Jews to die, but a priest and a Levite should help him. However, they are
surprised that the Samaritan is faithful to the principle of the Jewish Law.
In this scene, the Samaritans are depicted as model followers of the Law. It is an obligation for all
observers of the Jewish Law to help a dying fellow Jew. It is the practice of mercy (i.e., the core of the
Law) or neighborly love. A priest and a Levite are expected to be familiar with the Law and thus practice it,
but both leave a dying brother. On the other hand, one of the Samaritans, who are scorned by the Jewish
people, saves the life of the dying Jew.
Some materials in the Jewish literature testify to the Samaritans’ abidance of Jewish Law. Josephus
reports, “[t]hese same rites have continued in use even to this day among” the Samaritans (Josephus, Ant,
9.290). In the Rabbinic literature, we can find the evidence that the Samaritans are ideal keepers of the law.
10
Jesus argues through the parable that, contrary to the stereotype of the Samaritans among the Jews, the
Samaritans are devout followers of the Law.
2.3. The Cleansing of Ten Lepers (Luke 17:11–19): A Samaritan as a Model Follower
Luke sets the scene as “the region between Samaria and Galilee.” Nine Jewish lepers and one Samaritan
leper coexist because all of them are marginalized from their communities to a zone where the two areas
are not foreign to non-Christian auditors of Acts. (C. H. Talbert, “Conversion in the Acts of the Apostles:
Ancient Auditors’ Perspective,” in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson [ed.
R. P. Thompson and T. E. Phillips; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998], 141–54.) Green: (1)
Conversion in Luke-Acts is both an event and a process—or better, an event leading to a process. (2) For
both Jews and Gentiles, conversion is the transference of allegiances that govern one’s life. (3) For Luke,
conversion gives rise to and is confirmed by actions appropriate to these new allegiances. Conversion
opens the way to ongoing profound transformations in one’s theological and moral vision, and necessarily
locates and immerses one in the multiethnic community of God’s people. (J. B. Green, “‘To Turn from
Darkness to Light’ [Acts 26:18]: Conversion in the Narrative of Luke-Acts,” in Conversion in the Weslayan
Tradition [ed. K. J. Collins and J. H. Tyson; Nashville: Abington, 2001], 103–19.)
9 “Conversion” is a key term to understand the theology of Luke-Acts. The conversion of both bearers and
recipients of the gospel is escapable. For example, Peter is a character who turns his viewpoint regarding
Jewishness (Acts 10:1-11:18).
10 Samaritans are keepers of laws (y.Ber. 11b; b.Qidd. 76a; b. Ber.47b; t.Ter 4:14). Samaritans are sincere
proselytes but not “lion-proselytes” (y.Git. 43c; b.Qidd. 75c; b.Sanh. 85b; b.Nid 56b). “Lion-proselytes”
means those who superficially convert to Israelites religion in order to avert scare of lion in 2Kgs 17.
6
share a common border. This zone is a “contact zone” where the people who have different backgrounds
can meet and share their lives. Jesus comes to this “contact zone” and meets the group in which the
marginalized are intertwined.
In this story, Jesus orders the ten, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.”
11
On the way to the priest,
they experience a cleansing. The text does not explain whether they go to the priests at the Jerusalem
temple or those at the Gerizim temple. We can assume that nine Jews probably go to the priests at the
Jerusalem temple because Jews would not typically go to the priests of the Gerizim temple. However, the
Samaritan leper would hesitate to meet the priest in Jerusalem; hence, he goes back to Jesus and prostrates
himself at Jesus’ feet. According to Hamm, this means that he accepts Jesus’ authority and recognizes
Jesus’ feet as a proper place for worshiping God rather than either temple.12
In v. 18, Jesus calls this Samaritan ἀλλογενής “a foreigner.” Jesus’ admiration for this Samaritan’s faith
in vv. 17-18 echoes the word of Jesus in Luke 4:27 which connotes 2Kgs 5:1-19a.13 Jews who are stubborn
fail to accept Jesus’ salvation (=healing) but those who are marginalized by Jews can understand it.
The Greek word ἀλλογενής, which appears only here in the NT, is translated simply as “a foreigner” in
modern translations. However, Luke generally uses ἔθνος to signify a foreigner, andrarely ἐπιδημοῦντες.14
The word ἀλλο-γενής which is from ἄλλος and γένος means “other lineage” from an etymological ground.
However, in the LXX, the word ἀλλογενής is the translation of the Hebrew word ‫“ זָר‬other people” or
“common people.”15 Luke uses ἀλλογενής to indicate the Samaritans because he hesitates to call the
Samaritans ἔθνος because they are not a single nation but a marginalized segment of the Jews.
To sum up, the Samaritans in the Gospel of Luke are depicted as model Law-keepers from the Jewish
perspective and model recipients of Jesus from the Christian perspective. They are ready to form the early
Christian community together with the Jewish and Hellenistic Christians.
2.4. The Mission to Samaritans (Acts 8:4–25)
The question we have to ask here is whether the mission to the Samaritans was the first step of the
Gentile mission or the expansion of the mission to the marginalized Jews. First, we compare this scene with
Luke’s depiction of Peter’s mission to Cornelius and the response of the Jerusalem community to Peter’s
report. On the one hand, Philip goes down to the city of Samaria without any hesitation. Further, when the
11
Cleansing is completed with the recognition of a priest (Mark 1:40-45 [Matt 8:1-4; Luke 5:12-16]; Lev
chs 13-14; cf. m. Negaim).
12 Luke 8:35, 41; 10:39; Acts 4:37–38; 10:26. See D. Hamm, “What the Samaritan Leper Sees: The
Narrative Christology of Luke 17:11–19,” CBQ 56 (1994):273–87, esp. 284.
13 According to Bruners, Luke depicts Jesus as a prophet which is greater than a Elijah-like-prophet by
connoting 2Kgs 5. W Bruners, Die Reingung der zehn Aussätzigen und die Heilung des Samariters Lk
17,11-19: Ein Betrag zur lukanischen Interpretation der Reinigung von Aussätzigen (Stuttgart: Kothlisches
Bibelwerk, 1977), 118.
14 The word ἐπιδημοῦντες a participle of ἐπιδημέω is used for “a stayer in traveling” in Acts 2:10; 17:21.
15 The word ἀλλογενής appears 40 times in the LXX. Twelve out of the forty usages designates “common
people” i.e., other than the priest family, Levites (Exod 29:33; 30:33; Lev 22:10, 12, 13; Num 1:51; 3:10,
38; 17:5; 18:4, 7; Dan 1:10). In 1Esdras, it appears in the word prohibiting inter-marriage. In 1Esd
8:66LXX (v. 69 = NRSV), the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Moabites, the
Eqyptians, and the Edomites are listed as τὰ ἀλλογενῆ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς “alien people in the land,” that is, the
resident alien in the holy land. They are mentioned as sources of pollution.
7
apostles in Jerusalem heard that the Samaritans had accepted the gospel, they sent Peter and John because
the Samaritans had only been baptized at that point and had not received the hand of the apostles on them
yet. They welcomed the Samaritans and soon affirmed them without hesitation. On the other hand, it is not
until the encouragement of the Holy Spirit that Peter went to Cornelius’ house. The Holy Spirit fell upon
Cornelius and his household without the laying on of Peter’s hand. When the apostles in Jerusalem heard of
Peter’s mission to Cornelius, they criticized Peter. Peter defended his position by saying that the reception
of the Holy Spirit preceded his decision. Unlike when they welcomed and affirmed the Samaritans, they
were reluctant to accept the fact that the Holy Spirit came upon them.
Second, the fact that v. 9 mentions τὸ ἔθνος τῆς Σαμαρείας “the people of Samaria” cannot be a basis
for an argument that Luke recognizes the Samaritans as Gentiles. Luke uses ἔθνος simply as “resident” (ex.
Acts 10:22). Here also ἔθνος designates residents of the city of Samaria.
Third, when Luke writes “Judea,” this means the “Roman province of Judea” which includes both
Judea and Samaria” or the “whole land of Palestine” which includes Galilee, Samaria, and Judea. In Acts
1:8, Luke envisions the map of expansion of the mission as “(1) Jerusalem, (2) all of Judea and Samaria,
and (3) to the ends of the earth.” In this passage, Judea and Samaria represent the Roman province. On the
other hand, in Acts 9:31 the phrase “the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria” is used. This is the
latter case where he means the whole of Palestine. For Luke, Samaria is included in the larger map of
“Judea.”
3. Samaritans in “the World before the Text” (=Multicultural Coexistence Society [Japan])
In the previous two sections, I determined the Jewish view of the Samaritans and Luke’s strategies of
welcoming and affirming them. In the Second Temple period, the Jewish people disdained the Samaritans
as people of uncertain roots. Jewish discrimination against the Samaritans was due not to the Samaritan
temple on Mount Gerizim but to their intolerance toward heterogeneity among their “race” and prejudice
against those who have indeterminate roots. Jewish hatred for the Gerizim temple was a secondary reason
for their hostility against the Samaritans.
When we thus view the Samaritans, their circumstances overlap with the reaction against ethnic
diversity in any generation and in any time period. Intolerance toward and prejudice against heterogeneity
comes first. The majority people in a culture ignore the difficult position of the minorities in their culture,
and then they create a reason for social inequality. The majority often misrepresent the origin and history of
the minorities. Needless to say, the same thing is happening regarding the ethnic diversity, which has just
began in Japan. In this paper, I have attempted to show a model of discovering and re-examining historical
materials regarding minorities in our culture.
Turning to the Samaritan texts in Luke-Acts, the first contact of Jesus’ group with the Samaritans in the
“contact zone” (i.e., Samaria) was a “clash,” but Jesus opened an ongoing relationship. The Samaritans
were then depicted as “model keepers of the Jewish law” in the parable of the Good Samaritan and as
“model followers of Jesus” in the cleansing of ten lepers. In sum, Luke sends this single message to his
8
readers: “they are a part of us.”16
In Acts, the mission to the Samaritans is the cross-interaction and cross-fertilization of the Samaritans
and Christians. Both have been expelled from the Jerusalem temple. In Acts 8, both missionaries and
recipients of the gospel experience conversion as the transference of the allegiances that govern their lives,
and the acceptance of new allegiances.17 The mission field (i.e., Samaria) is a “contact zone.”
The community of believers in Jesus Christ that is envisaged in Luke-Acts is a “contact zone.” Those
who belong to the majority of the Jews and those who are marginalized (e.g., the poor and the sinners) form
the new community in the Jewish social world. Members of the community must be hospitable to
heterogeneity among them and free from prejudice against those who have uncertain roots. According to
Luke-Acts, the clash among different groups and the coercion of Jewish law has often occurred in
communities. However, the differences have been overcome by dialogue (Acts 11 and 15).
When the writer of Luke-Acts alludes to say “they are a part of us,” this does not mean to acknowledge a
physical kinship between the Jewish Christians (or simply the Jews) and the Samaritans, but to
acknowledge “kinship in the spirit.” According to Boyarin, a traditional Jewish culture considered literal
descent from Abraham and thus physical kinship as of supreme value in establishing identity. On the other
hand, Paul considered kinship in the spirit as the mark of identity. Boyarin, “Diaspora,” 702.
17 “Transculturations” of Mary Pratt is a concept which support the idea here. It means that “the reciprocal
influences of representations and cultural practices of various kinds in colonies and metropolis.” It is a
phenomenon of the contact zone. Pratt, Imperial Eyes, 9.
9
16
Bibliography
Anderson, Robert T. and Terry Giles. The Keepers: An Introduction to the History and Culture of the
Samaritans. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1999.
Coggins, Richard J. Samaritans and Jews; the Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1975.
Coggins, Richard J. “The Samaritans and Acts,” NTS 28 (1982): pp.423–434.
Crown, Alan D. and R. Pummer, eds. A Companion to Samaritan Studies. Tübingen: Mohr, 1993.
Dexinger, Ferdinand. “Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example,” Pages 88–114 in Jewish
and Christian Self-Definition. Edited by E. P. Sanders, A. I. Baumgarten, and A. Medelson. Volume 2
of Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period. Edited by E. P. Sanders. London: SCM, 1981.
Hayes, Christine E. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible
to the Talmud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972.
McKnight, Scot. A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.
Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.
Purvis, James D. “Ben Sir and the Foolish People of Shechem,” JNES 24 (1965): pp.88–94.
Purvis, James D. “The Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans,” NovT 17(1975): pp.161–198.
Purvis, James D. “The Samaritans and Judaism.” Pages 81–98 in Early Judaism and Its Modern
Interpreters. Edited by R. B. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Samkutty, V. J. The Samaritan Mission in Acts. LNTS(JSNTS) 328. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.
Van der Horst, Pieter Willem. “Samaritans and Hellenism,” the Studia Philonica Annual 6 (1994): 28–36.
Van der Horst, Pieter Willem. “Anti-Samaritan Propaganda in Early Judaism,” Pages 25–44 in Persuasion
and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism. Edited by Pieter Willem van
der Horst, Maarten J. J. Menken, Joop F. M. Smit, Geert Van Oyen. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.
Zangenberg, Jürgen. “Between Jerusalem and the Galilee: Samaria in the Time of Jesus.” Pages 393–432 in
Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charleswarth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.
10