No, a class's methods are not instances of java.lang.reflect.Method. The latter is simply a 'reflection', per the package name, of first class JVM construct e.g. a reflection on a method.
In the original comment, I was merely addressing the misunderstanding of the GP regarding the reflection packages constructs.
The interface is your basic (irreducible) disconnected/unbound procedure invocation API, with all the positive/warts associated. I agree that in principle, we have enough information in the reflection data structure to allow a (specific) JVM implementation to provide a non-standard 'method object' feature. Consensus, possibly? (Good question, really. C. Nutter is one to hit with that one.)
