Did Jews Avoid Traveling Through Samaria?
- Cougan Collins
- Nov 20
- 6 min read
Separating Historical Fact from Interpretive Tradition
When preachers and Bible teachers discuss the story of the woman at the well in John 4, a familiar claim often emerges: "In the first century, Jews hated the Samaritans so much that they would cross the Jordan River and travel down the eastern side (Perea) just to avoid setting foot in Samaria."
This interpretation has become so widespread and repeated with such authority that it has achieved the status of accepted historical fact. It serves as a powerful sermon illustration about prejudice, but does it hold up to scrutiny?
The reality is far more complex. While a longer route through Perea existed and was occasionally used by the ultra-religious elite or during times of extreme political unrest, the claim that all or even most Jews avoided Samaria is historically inaccurate.
The Core Question: Did Jews Regularly Detour Around Samaria?
The historical evidence offers a resounding no.
There are no primary historical sources indicating that Jews regularly avoided Samaria as a standard travel practice. Instead, evidence from Josephus, rabbinic literature, and the New Testament demonstrates that traveling through Samaria was the normal, customary practice for Galileans heading to Jerusalem.
Primary Historical Evidence: Josephus
Flavius Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, provides the clearest evidence against the "avoidance" myth. In Antiquities of the Jews (20:118), he writes:
"It was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city at the festivals, to take their journeys through the country of the Samaritans."
Josephus does not describe this as an unusual or exceptional route, he explicitly calls it "the custom." In his autobiographical work, Life (269), he explains why:
"For rapid travel, it was essential to take that route by which Jerusalem may be reached in three days from Galilee."
The route through Samaria was a direct line south. The alternative route, crossing the Jordan River, traveling down the Perea side, and crossing back near Jericho, added days to the journey. For the average pilgrim, such as Peter or the family of Jesus, a week-long detour was impractical.
While the journey through Samaria was not without danger due to ethnic tensions, Josephus records these dangers as part of the risk of the standard route, not a reason for a universal detour.
Rabbinic Literature: Permission to Travel
Ancient Jewish writings from the first few centuries (the Mishnah and Tosefta) corroborate Josephus. If Jews were forbidden from entering Samaria, we would expect Jewish law to reflect that. Instead, we find laws regulating how to travel through it.
The Tosefta (Avodah Zarah 3:1) explicitly states that Jewish herdsmen were permitted to leave cattle in Samaritan care when driving herds through the region. This presupposes routine movement through the territory.
The Tosefta (Mikvaot 6:1) declares: "Samaritan territory is [ritually] clean and its ritual immersion pools, dwellings, and paths are assumed to be [ritually] clean." This is a profound ruling. If Jews were avoiding Samaria to maintain purity, the rabbis would not have declared their paths and pools clean.
The Jerusalem Talmud records instances of famous rabbis, such as Rabbi Shemon ben Eleazar and Rabbi Ishmael ben Yose, traveling to Samaritan towns without any suggestion that they were breaking custom.
The New Testament: Routine Travel and Commerce
The Bible itself contradicts the idea of total avoidance.
Luke 9:51-56 and 17:11-19 describe Jesus and his disciples traveling through Samaria as part of their regular movement.
John 4:4 states Jesus "had to pass through Samaria." While some interpret this as a theological necessity, the geographical context suggests it was simply the most logical, direct route.
Most notably, look at the disciples in John 4:8: "His disciples had gone into the town to buy food."
This detail is often overlooked. If Jews practiced total avoidance of Samaritans, the disciples would not have entered a Samaritan city to conduct commerce. They were treating the region like a "bad neighborhood." They might not have wanted to linger, but they certainly traveled through it and bought supplies there.
The "Problem" Verse: John 4:9
If travel was common, why does John 4:9 say, "For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans"?
The Greek phrase used here (ou gar syngchrōntai) is specific. It translates literally to "do not use together" or "do not have joint use of objects." It refers to social intimacy and sharing vessels, not geographic presence or basic trade.
Pharisaic tradition held that Samaritan women were in a state of perpetual ritual impurity (referencing Niddah 4:1). Therefore, drinking from a vessel (a jar or cup) handled by a Samaritan woman would render a strict Jew ritually unclean.
When the woman expresses shock, she isn't surprised that Jesus is in Samaria; she is shocked that he is asking to share a drink with her. He was willing to use her cup, an act of social intimacy and ritual daring that shattered the "no dealings" rule.
The Gender Factor: A Double Taboo
To fully understand the woman's shock, we must look at gender dynamics. In the first century, Jewish men were strongly discouraged from speaking to women in public, even their own wives.
The Mishnah (Pirkei Avot 1:5) records this specific instruction:
"Yose ben Yochanan of Jerusalem said... do not talk much with a woman. They said this of one's own wife; how much more so of the wife of one's fellow."
A Jewish Rabbi engaging a woman in a long, deep, theological public conversation was culturally scandalous. Three layers of broken taboos likely triggered the woman's astonishment:
Gender: He was a man speaking to a woman in public.
Ethnicity: He was a Jew speaking to a Samaritan.
Purity: He was asking to drink from her vessel.
What About Matthew 10:5?
Critics often point to Matthew 10:5, where Jesus tells the disciples, "Do not enter any town of the Samaritans." Does this prove avoidance?
No. This was a specific instruction for a specific mission. Jesus was sending the disciples out on a short-term training mission limited to the "lost sheep of Israel." This restriction was temporary.
We know it was temporary because Jesus later explicitly reversed it.
Acts 1:8: Jesus commands them to be witnesses "in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria."
Acts 8: Philip preaches in Samaria, followed by Peter and John, the very disciples who were told to avoid it in Matthew 10.
Conclusion: Tension, Not Avoidance
So, why do so many preachers teach that Jews traveled around Samaria? It is likely a mix of misunderstood geography and a desire to heighten the drama of the story. It is narratively powerful to say Jesus went "where no Jew would go," but it simply isn't historically true.
The historical reality is that Jews and Samaritans were enemies. They disagreed on theology, temple location, and ethnicity. Violence occasionally flared up. However, animosity does not equal avoidance.
Just as people today might drive through a rough neighborhood to get to work more quickly, even if they lock their doors and don't stop to socialize, first-century Galileans regularly took the direct road through Samaria. Also, this article shows us how we can get information that is not backed up by history passed down or repeated by men who write commentaries, yet is not true. It makes it easier to believe when you have verses that teach that there was a disconnect between Jews and Samaritians. So, let's be more diligent in seeking the truth, whether it's about Scripture itself or external information related to a Bible event.
The beauty of John 4 is not that Jesus took a forbidden road. It is that he stopped on that road to break down cultural and racial barriers and offer "living water" to an outcast. He didn't just walk through her land; he walked into her world.
References
Comments