The original apostles and disciples were not hellenizers (far from it!). In my opinion, the "hellenization" began with Paul. The gospels, written after Paul, were written from the perspective of his Christology. And of course, those early writings that did not fit this template did not get selected for the canon.
Here is how I see it. Jesus and his original disciples believed in his messiahhood. This had both political and religious elements -- the restoration of Davidic rule in Israel (with, of course, the concomitant defeat and expulsion of the Romans), and also an eschatological vision of a "new world order", a new heaven and a new earth. This would be accomplished primarily through God's power, not by force of arms.
And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." (Luke 22:38)
The hoped-for divine intervention did not come.
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34)
As one claiming messiahhood, claiming the throne of Israel, Jesus was executed in the manner used by the Romans for revolutionaries.
After Jesus's death, his followers were obviously dismayed and scattered. Something happened, though, which made this different from other messianic movements, which disappeared after their leaders were killed. Jesus's followers became convinced that he was resurrected and was coming again soon to complete his messianic mission.
Here is how I see the character of these Nazarene Jews. First, they remained Jews. They continued to circumsize, and to observe the rest of the Law. The only difference in their beliefs was that Jesus was the messiah, that he was resurrected, and that he was returning soon. They had no disputes or problems with the Pharisees. In fact, they were held in high regard.
Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani'as. (Acts 9:10)
And one Anani'as, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there (Acts 22:12)
These Nazarene Jews did not have a Pauline view of Jesus.
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know --
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. (Acts 2:22-24)
Here, Peter says that Jesus was a man. He does not even call him Son of God. He also makes it clear that it was God who raised Jesus up.
These Nazarene beliefs made them distinct from Pharisaic Judaism, but did not cause problems with the Pharisees, and did not result in the split of the Jesus movement from Judaism.
That distinction was held by Paul. It was Paul who introduced the ideas about Jesus's sacrificial death, his divinity, and the eucharistic meal. Paul, who never knew Jesus in life, but who claimed direct revelation from the resurrected "Christ Jesus".
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.
For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)
The idea of a dying-and-resurrecting god was foreign to Judaism, but would have been well known to the Greeks. Same with the eating and drinking of the body and blood of this god. Paul's genius was grafting this mystery religion theology onto the root stock of Judaism, and messianic Nazarene Judaism in particular.
The religious experience Paul had on the road to Damascus may well have been this sudden "clicking together" of the teachings of the Nazarenes with the knowledge of the mystery religions he undoubtedly had from growing up in a pagan city like Tarsus.
For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus.
And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, "He is the Son of God." (Acts 9:19-20)
This is the only time in Acts that Jesus is called the Son of God. And it is Paul who calls him that.
Paul's novel Christology explains the problems he experienced with the Jerusalem church. The success of Paul's teachings, at the expense of the original Nazarene doctrine, also explains the problems that developed later on with Pharisaic Judaism, which would not have found Pauline Christianity acceptable.
And all four of the canonical gospels were written after Paul began preaching "my gospel".
C.S. Lewis, in commenting on the similarities between Christianity and other mystery religions, said that the Christian story is "the myth that just happens to be true". This is one way for a Christian to look at it.
I'm open for questions or comments! ;o)
So, ... what you're proposing is that Paul, ... a relative outsider, ... successfully realigned the original belief system of those that followed JESUS ... even to the extent that the two Apostles which wrote Gospel accounts (Matthew and John) were led astray ?
Apostles which had had intensive interaction with JESUS for three years before Paul ever came on the scene ?
Despite the fact that Paul/Saul was originally a well-known persecutor of the followers of the WAY ?
So, then, you propose that the Apostles came to believe in the Resurrection as a result of Paul's persuasion ... and that the gospels, which were written after Paul's influence, reflect that persuasion ?
What of the first-hand testimony of the Apostles interaction with the risen JESUS ?
It is possible that Paul could have persuaded the Apostles that JESUS had been resurrected, but, there is no way that he could have convinced the eleven of them that these post-resurrection interactions (with them) occurred if they had not. For this theory to be true, the Apostles would have had to make up the accounts.
I think that this is a bit of a stretch.