Let me just do a retake of my earlier reply here:
Very often, you see some folks who (mistakenly) conflate the Pharisees with the Temple priesthood, especially in the Passion narratives. Sometimes, popular art may contribute to this misconception: I could name a few Jesus films which do not show a very clear-cut difference between the Pharisees and the priests. In some of these films, they even all dress alike! This however is an opinion that I feel isn’t accurate either historically or Biblically.
Historically, the
Pharisees were predominantly lay sages and teachers. Some were priests, but a vast majority were scholarly laymen. They preached a grassroots, democratic and participatory form of Judaism that is, in many respects, liberal. Their views were were non-creedal and non-dogmatic, and heterogenous. They believed that because Israel is a “
kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (thus, every Jew is in some way, a priest), they believed in a Judaism that extended beyond the Temple, applying Jewish law to mundane activities in order to sanctify the every-day world. They emphasized that rituals were not something that is monopolized by an inherited priesthood but rather could be performed by all adult Jews individually or collectively; whose leaders were not determined by birth but by scholarly achievement. All Jews in their ordinary life, and not just the Temple priesthood or Jews visiting the Temple, should thus observe rules and rituals concerning purification.
These beliefs entailed both a commitment to relate religion to ordinary concerns and daily life, and a commitment to study and scholarly debate. In debating and disagreeing over the meaning of the Torah or how best to put it into practice, no rabbi felt that he (or his opponent) were in some way rejecting God or threatening Judaism; on the contrary, it was precisely through such arguments that the rabbis imitated and honored God, who is Himself envisioned as engaging in Torah study with the heavenly court.
The commitment to relate religion to daily life through the law has led to the view that they were ‘legalistic’ (cf. the label ‘pharisee’). In fact, some other Jewish groups were much more strict and legalistic than they were: their rivals, the Sadducees were committed to obeying the commandments of the Torah literally, word for word (without the Pharisaic notion of the
Oral Torah), and the Essenes governed themselves through elaborate rules and regulations. In some cases, Pharisaic law was even more lax. It is more accurate to say they were legalistic in a different way than is sometimes implied.
Now, as for their political status. There was a time when the Pharisees held actual political authority (during the Hasmonean Dynasty, 164-37 BC), but by the time of Jesus the Roman prefects and the Sadducees had largely sidelined them. Some were prominent and aristocratic, but the majority exercised power only by virtue of their broad appeal to the commoners. This is why you often see Jesus and the Pharisees scuffling with each other: because they both share a similar target audience. Nor did they have wealth as a whole: the Pharisees were a diverse group. There were those who had money, but a good majority are from what could be the middle and lower classes, who often performed odd jobs just to support themselves. For example, St. Paul was a tentmaker,
Hillel the Elder earned a meager living by dabbling in woodcutting and manual labor, and
Shammai worked as a contractor and builder.
