Without being any sort of expert on the Pharisees, I remember a Bible study about four or five years ago in which our Archbishop was the main speaker. It was a one-off event held at the local branch of the ACU (Australian Catholic University). If I remember rightly, he's got a doctorate specialising in the Gospel of Luke. I've heard others say he's got a gift for languages.
He did use his own personal experience to explain why some New Testament books are written in different standards of Greek. He said he was fluent in Italian, having lived in Rome for some time, and then just rattled off a couple of sentences, with hand movements to boot. It seems you can't learn Italian in Italy without talking with your hands like the natives. He then added "But I write in schoolboy Italian ... I haven't had the training" (to write more polished Italian).
I assume it was a bit like that with some of the NT writers. They were probably fluent in Greek, since it was the lingua fraca of the day, like English is now. But some of them probably wrote in schoolboy Greek, as "... they hadn't had the training".
Getting back on track, he mentioned the Pharisees, and commented the New Testament gave them a bad press. Then he said "But don't be fooled! The Pharisees were the closest in belief and practice to Christianity in Judaism of that time" (or words to that effect).
When they originally formed following the growing corruption after the Maccabean revolt, they were held in high regard by the Jewish people. But as time went by and the privileges of high office set in, I suppose their vision became somewhat clouded.
I don't know if Christ would necessarily have been a Pharisee simply because he was called "Rabbi", as another contributor has claimed. But I've long thought that when he was still an idealistic young chap, He may have considered becoming a Pharisee at some stage.
In the end though, there was obviously a falling out, fatal to Him.
