The James which this passage speaks of ... was not one of the original twelve ... for he saw the resurrected Christ after the twelve did. Also ... that there were other Apostles ... not of the twelve ... which saw the risen Christ around the same time this James did.
But doesn't this (following your rule) imply the Cephas was not of the twelve?
If Cephas could see him, and then James could see him ans then the Apostles...Could not that just mean that First Peter alone, Then all, Then James alone, then all again? And do you agree that the word referring to James the Lords Brother and the word referring to the 500 brethren of the Lord is the same Greek word adelphos? What do we make of that?
First, I recall that Peter and John made a special trip to the tomb.
It is highly likely, and perhaps confirmed here, ... that Peter did see the resurrected Christ before the other disciples.
And Christ did appear to all of the disciples (including Peter) at some point.
But I think that it is stretching the credibility of the passage to suggest that the James of the passage was also one of the Apostles.
This would imply that Jesus made a special appearance to this particular disciple ... not impossible, of course, ... but the context doesn't really support that interpretation.
Think of all of the questions that arise from such an interpretation.
For nstance ... why is it never mentioned before ... that one of Jesus' disciples ... was kin to Him.
And, of course, ... there is the fact that the scriptures clearly state that ... Jesus' brethren did not believe on Him.
I think that would have made it kinda tough for one of them to be a disciple.
How this James was Jesus' brother is not my point.
Only that it is quite unlikely that James, the brother of Christ, ... was one of the twelve.
Is that any stranger than a new James appearing out of nowhere in Acts 12 or 15?
Is it any stranger than the mother of Jesus being called "the mother of James and Joses" at the cross?
SD