“. 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.
re: “the Sadducees were considered heretics by most Jews” — I’ve not read anything of that sort. The Hellenizers were considered heretics but not the Sadduccees as a whole. They were considered corrupt by some, but were the elite for the majority who just obeyed, prayed and paid.
regarding “their heresy was the rejecting of the Oral Law” — the Oral Law was innovation from the 5th century BC. There is little to no indication of it prior to that. The Sadduccee position was “this is innovation” — and as to what the majority of people thought - they didn’t think or know what to think either way, so neither the S nor the P were considered heretics by the majority of the populace and even they didn’t consider each other heretics so much as misguided (otherwise there would have been full on war)
On what basis do you say “the Zadoks (probably the Essenes) who had the better lineage claim”??
As per Josephus and others, they aren’t generally “thought of” as anything more than weirdos who lived in caves - by the majority of the population.
As to whether John the B was an Essene/Zadok, it’s probable, but he didn’t act like Essenes in his going out preaching and he wasn’t condemned or acclaimed by them.
J the B is considered a prophet and in fact THE prophet among the Mandaens, not sure if that is relevant
The Golden rule for Hillel differs from Jesus’ golden rule.
Hillels “ “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”
Jesus: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
or
hillel: don’t hit your pal as you don’t want him to hit you
Jesus: do good and not bad to your pal as you’d like him to do to you.
you can argue a gradation, but that is not the same Beit Hillel teaching.
The Pharisees use the Oral Torah to define laws and rules. So yes it does how equal weightage in the P’s eyes.
As to “the recordation of rulings and thoughts of people” — yes, like the rest of the Talmud, discussions back and forth.
The next, the “Oral Law (as recorded in the Talmud)” is circular reasoning.