The fall of Samaria, which resulted in the deportation of 1000's from the northern kingdom to Assyria, raises another question: Was the subsequent Assyrian importation and settlement of people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim into the towns of Samaria the beginning of the people known in the New Testament as the Samaritans?
While the traditional assumption is that the Samaritans of the New Testament are the descendants of those imported peoples mentioned in 2 Kings 17, a comparison of the two groups does raise reason for doubt. For example, the imported peoples were syncretists - i.e. "They worshipped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought (vs. 33)."
Because clear evidence of such syncretism doesn't exist among those later identified as Samaritans, scholars like Everett Ferguson suggest that a connection between the two peoples isn't so clear, and may be nothing more than a later attempt of Jews to slander the Samaritans (Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd Edition, p. 534). But what would be the motivation for such slander? The Samaritans created a rival religious institution that preferred Shechem and Mt. Gerizim over Jerusalem and Mt. Zion as the location of the Holy Place (p. 534).
In contrast to Ferguson, the Archaeological Study Bible (Zondervan 2005), says the Samaritans are "a mixed race made up of a combination of Israelites who remained in the land and these non-Israelite settlers (note 17:24-41, p. 557)." And in spite of their syncretistic origins, they eventually "came to follow the teachings of Moses, including monotheism (note 17:24-41, p. 557)." I might add that their (ASB-Zondervan) conclusion of an evolution from syncretism to monotheism may be correct, but I have not been able to find a justification for that conclusion in any of their many notes on the Samaritans.
While the origins of the New Testament Samaritans may not be as clear as we might wish, we can see - and I think some may be surprised - how this "slandered, mixed race" people are referenced in the New Testament.
The references to the Samaritans fall clearly into three groups: First we see Samaritan used as a pejorative as in John 8:48 when Jesus was asked, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" We can see this negative sense also in the story of the (Samaritan) woman at the well in John 4. Her initial words to Jesus illustrate the inferior position of the Samaritans among Jews: "“How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)"
The second type of reference to Samaritans is simply geographical. For example, when Jesus sent his disciples out (Matthew 10), he specifically told them not to go among the Gentiles or any town of the Samaritans. Rather, he charged them, "Go to the lost sheep of Israel." Luke mentions a time when Jesus sent his disciples into a Samaritan village to prepare things for his arrival (9:52). None of these types of references should be deemed positive or negative.
The third category includes those times Jesus mentions or interacts with Samaritan people, and is clearly the most positive portrayal of the Samaritans in the Bible. I've already mentioned the John 4 story of the (Samaritan) woman at the well. In this story, we don't see Jesus distancing himself from her because he is a Jew and she a Samaritan. We don't see him reference her pejoratively. What we see is Jesus offering her "living water" and engaging her in a meaningful conversation about the messiah. John concludes this story with a very positive view of the Samaritan woman: "Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony (John 4:39)."
Another illustration of how Jesus views the Samaritans differently than the surrounding culture does is how he juxtaposes the Samaritan with religious Jews in the story of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Since Jesus was crafting that story himself, he could have painted any picture he wanted, yet he chose to cast the Samaritan as the good neighbor and the religious Jews as the bad neighbors.
Finally, in Luke 17 we see the story of Jesus healing ten lepers: While on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled between Galilee and Samaria and was approached from a distance by ten lepers. They called out to him and he healed them. One of them, realizing that he was healed, came back to thank Jesus. Then, as if in a parenthetical note, Luke adds, "He was a Samaritan." Notice Jesus' response: "Weren't all ten healed? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" Once again, Jesus juxtaposes the outsider against those representing the majority culture.
In all three cases - the woman at the well, the good Samaritan, and the leper who was healed - the Samaritans were cast in a much more positive light than some might expect considering the hostility of the surrounding culture toward them.
Is there an application for us in how we should treat/view those who might be considered negatively by the surrounding culture? Is their standing in the culture at large to considered more important than their response to the gospel? I think the answers are yes and no, respectively.