Question

I study a lot of the external books and Philo of Alexandria and so on, and more than once I come across changes that in themselves would not bother me if they were publicly acknowledged and the rabbis would say that nevertheless we rely on the Sages, and so on. But it seems that nobody has any idea, and the rabbis are in denial, because it makes the Sages look really bad.
Even regarding “an eye for an eye,” Maimonides says in Guide for the Perplexed that this was indeed the case, but the public was not capable of hearing it (and there was a Haredi rabbi whose lectures were blown up because he spoke a bit about this).
And I’m talking about the fact that in all the external books our calendar is solar and without a leap year, and intercalating the year is indeed not mentioned in the Torah. “This month shall be for you the first of the months” is like the commandment to mention the Sabbath in the days of the week: the third month, the fourth month, and not as the Sages interpret it. Because the reality that the spring month would not fall on Passover is not logical according to a solar calendar. Apparently they only changed this at the end of the Second Temple period.
And in Philo there are dozens of examples of prohibitions or commands that do not exist for us.
For example, he interprets “They shall not take a woman who is a harlot or profaned” as the same woman, a profaned harlot, and that makes me think: so is the whole concept of a disqualified priestly descendant an invention of the Sages?
For the suspected adulteress there is no mention at all of warning witnesses and seclusion witnesses, only a strained inference from the verses; and all the more so she does not die in a miraculous way, rather he explains “her belly shall swell” as infection and inflammation.
He explicitly counts only 6 relatives for whom a priest becomes impure! Apparently this was before the Sages’ exposition that he becomes impure for his wife. And unfortunately I have many more examples.
I’m at a loss and feel as though there was a “coup” in Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period by a group of “Pharisees,” and suddenly I understand why they had many opponents, and I find myself feeling empathy toward the Sadducees, Karaites, and other groups that were filtered out so well that I hardly know them. I think to myself: they would probably call us Reform, not Pharisees.
I’m very, very grateful to the Rabbi, and sorry if this was written in confusion and emotional turmoil.