Interesting chart, although I’d quibble with it a bit.
I think my quibbles are mainly because it’s so hard to put these concepts into a chart, but there are some major errors.
It’s impossible to draw a direct line for some of these — for example, the Pharisees (which I guess are the House of Shammai) aren’t the only ancestors of Rabbinic Judaism, but rather the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, the second of which is arguably more important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houses_of_Hillel_and_Shammai
I suppose this is all arguable, in that what Gentiles call “Pharisees” is unclear to me.
One major error would be to call Samaritans the descendants of Sadducees. Their intellectual descendants are the Karaites. (Both reject the Talmud as authoritative.)
In fact, the Samaritans are “not Jewish” (under Jewish law — they are Jewish under Israeli secular law). The religion of Samaritans is Samaritanism, and hold the Mount Gerizim as the proper place for the Temple.
In fact, I believe Samaritans are the product of intermarriage between left-behind Jewish men (during the Babylonian captivity) and pagan women — and their religion reflects this mishmash.
1. the Pharisees while defined by the School of Shammai and Hillel seem to be far older. I’d guess they date back to the BAbylonian exile. Josephus states that they were a presence right in the days of John Hyrcanus.
2. Pharisees for gentiles are considered those who:
2.1. Stated that the Oral Torah had equal weightage as the Written Torah
2.2. stated that the purity laws were even more sacrosant (based on the oral Torah not the written Torah)
3. The green line for the Samaritans is from the 1st temple time
4. The Samaritans are not Jewish, true - but they are a sister religion to 2nd temple Judaism and an “aunt religion” to modern/CE Judaism and to Christianity.
5. Samaritans are a product of... - genetically it seems somewhat correct, but not enough to make a definite statement. The “pagan women” were local Semites like Canaanites or Edomites or Ammonites or Aramaens etc.
Regarding the Karaites and the Sadducees — they do have a point - the Talmud or rather the Babylonian Talmud is discussions over discussions and seem more about the argumentative process rather than the law.
This is of course (this being the Talmudic view) appropriate when you consider that the Torah says “keep the Sabbath holy” but then doesn’t proceed to tell you what exactly that is supposed to entail.
The Talmud and more specifically the Halasha tells you exactly what is to be done.
But I wonder - and here it’s pure speculation on my part - is that really valid? Should we have such detailed rules? It makes it easier, but doesn’t it open up to dancing on a pin?