So, hopefully we need not return to the possible confusion of Jew and Pharisee. Both are jew, but both are not Pharisee. If Kant had ever been our guide we could pick up from one of his elementary prolegomena,
Wenn man eine Erkenntniß als Wissenschaft darstellen will, so muß man zuvor das Unterscheidende, was sie mit keiner andern gemein hat, und was ihr also eigenthümlich ist, genau bestimmen könnenAnd if that can't be done with a simple distinction between Jew and Pharisee, we too will be tempted with a misologia while bumbling about trying to distinguish the several kinds of law --more than 2 by St. Paul--not to mention the tax on all our patience when posters, in their failed disinterestedness, make statements about one to apply to the other.
All orthodox jews are denied salvation. To be an orthodox jew, you cannot regard the 10 commandments as ornamental or "ceremonial". And to an orthodox jew, accepting jesus as savior unambiguously violates the 1st and 2nd Commandments. As per the Catholic encyclopedia quote about Pharasees I just caughed up, to be orthodox is to be a Pharasee: to take the law seriously--not to regard some parts of it as "ceremonial".
There is no distinction of note between Jew and Pharasee, and even if the distinction were worth noting in John, Matthew unambiguously tells the same story with all of the nation of israel as the fall guy, and minces no words in their condemnation, and Acts is even worse.
Like the christian apologists for Pius XII's silence, you hang a lot of weight on a non-weight-bearing point.