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.
“. 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.”
Eh, maybe. Or kind of.
There were two things going on, that bring in the priestly class into the mix.
1. First, the priestly class broke out into two groups — the Sadducees (who were considered heretics by most Jews, and still are). They were rich, corrupt, and protected by the various powers-that-be. They were technically Levites/Cohen, but really bought their position. If you look, most didn’t serve but a year, while during the First Temple, the priests serves for generally 50 or more years. Lots got dragged out sick, after being in the Holy of Holies. Again, as discussed by Jewbacca, their heresy was the rejecting of the Oral Law.
2. Their Levite counterpart were the Zadoks (probably the Essenes) who had the better lineage claim, were generally thought of as better people, did not share the heretical beliefs of the Sadduces, but had no money or power, and so lived in caves. (John the Baptist, BTW, is referred to as probable a member of this group in Jewish sources.)
3. The “Pharasees” references in the Nazarine books were the Beit Shammai, generally speaking. Members of the Beit Hillel were mentioned — but kindly.
For example (apparently) Gamaliel (Beit Hillel) is discussed as a member of the Sanhedrin who desired to leave the Nazarene and his apostles alone.
And, bluntly, the “Golden Rule” (famously originally done by Hillel while holding a burning stick and on one foot) and the bulk of the Sermon on the Mount is straight Beit Hillel teachings.
Anyway, long way of saying, lumping the two Houses together is a bad idea. Especially because, in the course of time, Beit Hillel’s teachings won out over Beit Shimmai in modern Rabbinical teaching.
“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)”
If so, pharisees never existed, as no one (sane, anyway) teaches that the “Oral Torah had equal weighting as the written Torah.”
The Oral Law is imperfectly preserved. It conflicts. If it conflicts with the Written Torah, it’s wrong (or being interpreted wrong).
As you noted the Oral Law is the recordation of rulings and thoughts of people. Yes, generally inspired, intelligent, and G-dly people. But people. And all people have bad days and make mistake.
It’s important stuff, yes. And fills in critical blanks. And sometimes inspired by HaShem.
But no school of Jewish thought ever contemplated the Oral Law (as recorded in the Talmud) as superior to the the Written.
Where that comes from is the fact that the Oral Law was, indeed, given to Moses by HaShem. So that Oral Law was, indeed, perfect.
What we have today, however, does not pretend to be.