He was accepted by some of them--but the believing remnant of Israel has always been just that--a remnant. In the time of Elijah there remained only 7000 faithful to the G-d of Israel. Don't you think they were scoffed at because they were in the minority?
     The Messiah isn't chosen by majority vote. G-d appointed David to be king over Israel, but it was many years before everyone would accept him. Similarly, the majority has yet to accept their messiah. But the final decision isn't theirs to make; it's G-d who selects and annoints the King.

     Some of the greatest scholars of his day DID accept him. (Paul (Saul) was a student of Gamaliel--not a country hick. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were also prominent in Jerusalem.)  But as noted above, selection of the Messiah is G-d's choice, not man's. Acceptance  or non-acceptance by the sages and scholars guarantees nothing, as Rabbi Akiva and company made so abundantly clear in the  case of Bar Kochba.

     Paul did not write the gospels, and he did not write the letters of James, John, Jude, or Peter. If he had invented a faith and belief different from theirs, this should be evident in their different writings. But instead all of them witness to the same beliefs, the same concepts about Yeshua, the same concepts about his life, death, and resurrection.
     The only possible point of divergence is over whether or not gentiles must fulfill the entire halacha.  Paul says--and James and the rest agree with him--that they don't. But the NT accurately depicts the struggles faithful Jews had in discarding the notion that obeying a lot of rules somehow was a prerequisite for salvation.

     As shown by the work of Carmignac, Tresmontant, and others (see Bibliography), the gospels were either originally written in a semitic tongue, or else they were based on documents written in a semitic tongue; which testifies to these records being set  down at a very  early date.  The culture from which the gospels come was a very literate culture. In contrast to the pagan religions, a Jewish man might find it necessary to read aloud from the scrolls in a synagogue; or he might be asked to expound upon the meaning of a certain verse. The local schools which existed to teach Torah therefore undoubtedly also concerned themselves with literacy, at least to a certain extent. (A comparison might be made with the schools in Yemen at the end of the last century, where perhaps one book would have to be shared by an entire class--yet the learning went on anyway.)
     And we know that written accounts were kept of debts and property transactions; that there were perhaps as many as thirty-eight different kinds of legal documents, some of which were already prepared and had blank spaces which could be filled in; that there was a letter service of some type (at least for prominent people or the government); and a kind of wall placard, or newsheet, in the cities, which sometimes also posted government notices. (One wonders whether an official announcement of the crucifixion of Yeshua of Nazareth may have been made in this way.)  The same Tosefta (Shabbat 17:5,8) which speaks of the placards also mentions hosts who keep lists of their guests. (See also Edersheim, Vol. I, Bk II, chp. 2, p. 131; and Vol. IV, Bk IV, chp. 18, pp. 272-273).
     Judea was furthermore surrounded by a number of other cultures, such that it would be natural for residents to become at least partly multi-lingual-- in Greek, Latin, and  Aramaic, for example. (A comparison with the shtetles of Eastern Europe may be in order, in which education persisted and a rate of literacy was achieved, even in the most dire poverty, and villagers might be expected to know a smattering of Russian, Polish, German, Yiddish, Hungarian,  or Romanian, as well as Hebrew.)
     In such a culture, it would be unusual for a religious sect to maintain only an oral tradition, without writing anything down. And it is noteworthy that the Essenes, who had texts of their own separate from the scriptures, and the Therapeutae in Egypt, mentioned by Philo, both maintained their own written books.
     Yeshua was not only a rabbi; he was a rabbi whom many of his talmidim believed to be the messiah. It would be illogical to suppose that they would not have copied down his words, his teachings, his story illustrations, as well as his deeds, in order to share them with others.   (When the late Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke on Sabbath, several of his hearers with excellent memories would sit in the front rows and record mentally what he had to say; they would then transpose this to paper as soon as the Sabbath was ended. They had great respect for the Rebbe and many hoped he would be the messiah.  They wanted others to be able to share in his words and teaching. They did not wait for  decades, even up to half a century, before putting anything into written form. It is tempting to suppose that disciples of a prominent rabbi in the Second Temple period might have felt the same about their rabbi, and likewise have put his words to paper almost immediately.)

     When Moses was born, his life was immediately put into danger, and a brutal ruler sought to kill him at once.

     He was raised in the royal palace, but his sympathies were with his own people.

     He left the palace in order to be able to deliver them.

     His own people at first refused to listen to him and rejected him, saying, 'Who made you a ruler and judge over us?'

     His first public miracles were over the power of the serpent, and over leprosy. (Matt. 4:10,11; 8:3)

     Though Israel was indebted to him for delivering them, yet they murmered against him, and even once were ready to stone him. (Ex. 17:4)

     He was meek, 'above all the men who were on the face of the earth'. (Numb. 12:3)

     He was a mediator. 'I stood between the L-rd and you.' (Deut. 5:5) 'So He said He would destroy them--had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before Him, to keep His wrath rom destroying them.' (Psalm 106:23)

     Israel rebelled against his leadership, and the Almighty would have destroyed them, but they were forgiven because he interceded for them. 'The L-rd replied, 'I have forgiven them, as you asked.' (Numb. 14:20)

     Yet only the believing remnant was permitted to enter the promised land.

     He passed and repassed easily between Israel and the L-rd, having access to both.

    He was the mouthpiece of G-d: 'And Moses came and told the people all the words of the L-rd.' (Ex. 24:3)

     He gave the people the words by which they were to live.

     He finished the work he was given to do.'Thus did Moses according to all that the L-rd commanded, so he did.' (Ex. 40:16)  'So Moses finished the work.' (Ex. 40:33)

      (Adapted from Arthur Pink, 'Gleanings in Exodus')

     Isaac's birth was foretold and promised by G-d.

     A lengthy interval passed between the time of the promise and the time of his birth.

      His mother did not understand how she could bear a son.

     His birth came about because G-d intervened to make it happen. ('Nothing is impossible with G-d.')

     He was named before he was born.('And you shall call his name. . . ')

     He was not born until the appointed time, the time which was set.

     He was his father's beloved son.

     His birth stirred up the jealousy of his brother.

     He did not rebel when he was to be sacrified, but trusted in the wisdom of his father.

     He had to carry the wood for his sacrifice.

     He was prepared to be sacrificed in the mountains of Moriah (site of the later Temple and crucifixion).

     He was to be smitten by his own father.

     G-d showed that the only sacrifice which would be acceptable to Him would be one in which He Himself provided the sacrificial offering.

     His own received him back, as though from the dead.

     Joseph was the favorite son of his father.

    His father sent him to find his brethren.

    He was a shepherd.

    He was destined one day to rule over the House of Jacob.

    His brethren hated him, out of envy.

    While he was still yet far from them, they conspired to kill him.

    They sold him to the gentiles, for the price of a slave.

    Though he had done no wrong, he was falsely accused and declared guilty.

     He was placed with two malefactors, one of whom was released to life, the other to death.

     In due course he was exalted and set up at the right hand of the king.

     He was presented by the king with a bride.

     He gave bread to a perishing world.

     He became the instrument for the salvation of the gentiles.

    His brothers did not recognize him the first time they saw him; but he recognized them, and wept.

     He made provision for his brothers even though they did not recognize him, when they were in a strange land.

      His brothers recognized him the second time when he made himself known to them; and they repented before G-d.

     His brothers were troubled when they learned who he was, but he forgave them and wept in rejoicing at the reunion.

     He proclaimed that all he had suffered had been the will of G-d for him, and that he had been sent ahead of them to save them.

     He sent his brothers back to tell of all the glory which he had at the right hand of the king.

      Rather, such prefigurement is the greatest sign of G-d's involvement.
          (G-d loves what He does, and repeats it with variations, like a theme in a symphony.)

     The early followers of Yeshua believed that a mocked and ridiculed rabbi, who had been crucified under Pontius Pilate, was actually the promised messiah. They expressed great confidence in this view, because they asserted that everything that had happened to him, including his rejection, had been foretold and outlined long before in Tanach.
     It was clear to them that scripture talked of almost nothing else, from quite literally the very beginning.  For example, the opening words of Genesis 1:1 are usually translated as 'In the beginning. . . ' But the Hebrew word 'reshith' ('beginning') can also have the meaning 'firstborn son'.  And so, one could translate the passage, 'In the firstborn son G-d created the heavens and the earth.'  (Jerome quoted Aristo of Pella--who, according to Origen, was a Nazarene--Quaest.heb.Gen.1.1) as stating in the 'Dialogue of Jason and Papiscos' that the verse whould be translated this way. Iraneus also translated this as 'The son in the beginning; then G-d created the heavens and the earth'. (Dem.43)  Tertullian noted the same possible meanings:' in the beginning'; 'in the head'; or 'in the son'. (Tract.Psalm 2.2) The modern French author Danielou noted the comparisons between these meanings and I Cor. 1:15-18, where Saul (Paul) seems to write of the same three meanings: 'He is the image of the invisible G-d, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created. . . And he is the head of the body. . . he is the beginning and the firstborn. . .  'This would suggest, according to Danielou, that there was perhaps already extant a rabbinical tradition explaining the passage in these several ways, which Saul employed.
     In Ezekiel 9:4, G-d instructs someone to go through Jerusalem and put a mark on the forehead of those who are righteous so that they will not be hurt in the coming judgement against the city. (This is similar to the blood of the lamb of Pesach.)  However, the Hebrew does not say, 'mark'; it instructs that the Hebrew letter 't' be placed on the foreheads of the righteous. In the pre-exilic days of Israel--a time which directly preceeded that of Ezekiel--this letter was formed in the shape of an 'X' , or the shape of a cross.  Thus, the righteous were to be marked with a cross.  Similarly, in Revelation 7:2,3, an angel comes down from heaven and gives instructions to mark the foreheads of the servants of G-d.  Revelation 14:1 and 22:4 suggest that this mark might be the Name of G-d and the Lamb.  Some authors believe that the cross came to be the symbol of the Nazarenes not because it represented the crucifixion, but because it represented the Name.  (It was  later, by this reasoning, when Greek influence became predominant, that it was easily assimilated and used to stand for 'Christos' (or Messiah).
    In Luke 9:31, Moses and Elijah are shown talking with Yeshua about what is usually translated as his 'departure'; but in fact the Greek word used here is 'exodus', so that they are talking about his 'exodus' to be fulfilled in his crucifixion.
     The earliest catechism of Nazarene belief (the 'Didache', or the 'Teaching' ) is thought to be simply a revised Jewish catechism of the Second Temple period. Among its many points:
     Didache 6:12  . . . if you are able to bear the whole yoke of the L-rd, then you will be perfect. . . but if you are not able, then do as much as you can.  (The 'yoke' of the L-rd is a traditional Jewish expression, and usually refers to keeping the mitzvot or the halacha. If you are not able to keep all of the commandments, then traditionally Judaism has urged that you keep as many or as much as you can.)
     Didache 7:1 urges that those who are to be baptized be baptized in 'living' water (ie, running water), which is the same requirement as for a mikvah.
      Didache 8:1 refers to the sixth day of the week as 'the day of preparation' for the Sabbath. (It is hardly likely that a gentile would have referred to it in this way, especially after Sunday became came to take precedence over Saturday.)
     Didache 9:2 contains a blessing for wine; Didache 9:3 a blessing for the bread. In neither blessing is the word 'G-d' used, but rather, 'Our Father'.
     Didache 10:3 gives thanks for food and drink, which G-d gave to men to enjoy. (Here again the phraseology is very similar to Jewish practice, and again the word 'G-d' is avoided and He is addressed simply as 'Almighty Master', similar to the Jewish expression 'Master of the Universe' used in most Jewish blessings.)
     Didache 13:3 instructs that the 'firstfruits' of one's produce and livestock should be given to the 'prophets', because they are (like) your chief-priests (or high priests).
     Didache 13:4 says that if there is no prophet, then these firstfruits should be given to the poor. (Likewise a Jewish practice from Tanach.)
     These are the sort of rules, in other words, which would likely be formed by a traditional Jewish community, and by the followers of Yeshua, who did not see their belief in him as something that was separate from Judaism, but instead was only a continuation of that same Judaism.
     The early followers of Yeshua also continued the practice of referring to G-d as  the 'Name'. In Acts 5:42 the apostles rejoiced that 'they were counted worthy to suffer for the Name'. Ignatius in his letters wrote that 'You heard I was . . . in bonds for the sake of the Name.' (3.1). And he spoke of those who 'carry the Name to every place'. (7.1) The Shepherd of Hermas likewise makes mention of 'those  . . .who have suffered for the sake of the Name'. (1:9)  And Clement wrote extensively about the power of the Name (of Yeshua) and compared it to the Divine Name used in Tanach. (Strom V, 38:6).