(A critical analysis of the four pauline epistles, p. 282, my bold)By the end of the first century probably a Gospel was in existence localizing the sacrifice of the Saviour God, or the Messiah, Jesus, in Jerusalem. The result of that would be that the party of Cephas would very rapidly grow in authority. " Traditions " professing to come from men who had known the divine man in the flesh began to emanate from Jerusalem. The church in Jerusalem, now in a position to claim that its leaders were the successors of the Apostles, and that it was the repository of the "traditions," could speak with authority to the other communities, in which the ground had been prepared by the party of Cephas. And it ventured to push its authority so far as to require Gentile Christians to conform to the Mosaic law. Now at length, late in the first or early in the second century, the situation exhibited in the Epistle to the Galatians becomes not merely possible but just what one would naturally expect. This sketch of Christian development during the first century is not only reconcilable with, but even supported by, the documentary evidence, as the traditional hypothesis certainly is not ; it is, moreover, perfectly reasonable and probable in itself. There is sufficient evidence that there was no conflict over the Mosaic law until late in the first century.
(ibidem, p. 286, my bold)We have in this Epistle a phenomenon wth which by this time we have become familiar. The writer was using a device which is exemplified in a considerable number of the documents which go to make up the Bible. In order that his appeal may have greater influence than any written in his own name could have, he feigns to have discovered an early letter written by Paul himself which is very pertinent to the dispute in progress. And since the other side had no doubt invoked the authority of the early Jewish Apostles, he takes care to represent them as having been withstood and confuted by Paul. And lest any one should think that the Jewish Apostles had greater authority as the immediate disciples of Jesus, he represents Paul as having received his authority directly from God.
If this reconstruction is true, then even the Gospel-coloured lens by which one can read this Epistle are really mythicist evidence, as:
1) ''another Gospel'' was really a historicist Gospel condemned by the mythicist author of the epistle under the name of ''Paul''.
(ibid., p. 317-318, my bold). Verse 9 of chapter i, "As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema," is a direct reference to Second Corinthians xi, 4. Yet the circumstances to which the warning is applied do not appear to be the same. The men against whom Second Corinthians, chapters x to xii, were directed were preaching "another Jesus" It is to be observed that the writer of Galatians avoids the phrase "another Jesus." He says several times that those who were troubling the congregation were preaching another gospel. And it becomes clear later on what in his view the difference between Paul's gospel and theirs was, particularly in verses 15 and 16, "We being Jews by nature yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law believed on Christ Jesus." The Jewish emissaries were now saying that the law had not been abrogated, but it is clearly implied that Paul and the older Apostles had all believed on the same Christ Jesus. That is also inferrible from the statement that not very long before Paul had submitted his own doctrine to James and Peter and John, who had approved of it and given him the right hand of fellowship that he should go to the Gentiles. A writer cannot, in a single letter, have claimed that the gospel he preached had obtained the cordial acquiescence of certain men and have charged the very same men with preaching "another Jesus." He does not, in fact, do so. The only difference, a very important one certainly, which he now asserts to exist between their gospel and his is that, according to his, the Jewish law has been abrogated in Christ while they deny it. The men, therefore, who were attacked in Second Corinthians because they preached " another Jesus " were not the heads of the church at Jerusalem. In reality, the Jesus preached by Paul was not the same as the Jesus preached by the Jewish Apostles, but either the writer of Galatians in the interest of unity wished it to be believed that all the early Apostles had preached the same Jesus, or he desired to parry the violent attack which was being made upon Paul from the Jewish side by representing that his doctrine had been submitted to the Jewish Apostles and approved by them.
The real author of the epistle imagines that the historicist Gospel of the his opponents is the same of Paul, but with a difference: Paul's Gospel is superior since he adds an Independent Revelation directly by God.
2) the James ''Brother of the Lord'' would be meant really by the author of the epistle as the biological Brother of Jesus (according to the news coming after the 70 from Jerusalem), but only in order to reiterate the point that, even so, ''Paul'' is a greater and more legitimate apostle then James and Peter. For the Pillars had approved the Gospel of Paul, therefore recognizing implicitly the superiority of the pauline Gospel even in comparison to their (recently fabricated) historicist Gospel. Something as:
''Ok, even if your historicist Gospel is correct, the mythicist Gospel of Paul is still superior, since you have approved it, too, and only for fear you abandon it''.
Therefore the Epistle to Galatians would represent a post-70 masterpiece of a theological compromise between (old) Mythicist Christians and (new) historicist Christians:
''Paul'' concedes to his historicist opponents:
1) the centrality of Jerusalem,
2) the biological relationship of James with Jesus
3) the authority of the Pillars
...but only to insist again and again that:
1) Jerusalem is nothing in comparison to the Diaspora, if it is seen as anti-Diaspora.
2) James the Brother of Lord is nothing if he is seen as enemy of Paul (and note that in the epistle the hostility of James is never declared, but only the hostility of some Judaizers ''came from James'').
3) the authority of the Pillars is nothing if they are seen as enemies of Paul.
In a word, the conflict in Galatians between Paulines and Judaizers is only ventilated as a concrete possibility, since it is there only as effect of a possible INTERPRETATION, not of a real FACT. The same epistle (if the ''catholicizing'' goal of the his author is gained) can be interpreted as a deliberate compromise.