Please Name ONE Secular 1st Century Historian Besides Josephus Who Mentions the Name, "Jesus". (hell, Mormon)

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Retroit

Philo was a Jewish theologian. Why would he write about Jesus?

He wrote about about Jerusalem and Pilate's abuses there, and he even wrote about the Essenes east of Jerusalem. And in "On Providence" he says he traveled several times to Judea. So if Jesus was in any way famous, one would have thought he would be mentioned. If he was not well known, then one as to ask how Josephus could have known about him.

Originally Posted by Retroit

Only fragments of Justus’ works have survived.

That is the case now, but Photius lived in the 9th century AD, and is aware of the work of Justus. Presumably he had a copy now lost.

Originally Posted by Retroit

Was Pliny anywhere near Israel?

Pliny the Elder spent much of his spare time studying and investigating natural and geographic phenomena from all over the Roman empire. He also wrote about the Essenes, so he was aware of events in the area.

Originally Posted by Retroit

You claim that Christians invented passages, but could it not be the case that non-Christians deliberately left out information? Why would they spend time on a little known preacher, of whom there were many at the time?

Now that is an interesting question. Unfortunately if they did leave things out, then we have no evidence even to say if this is true or not.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by normstad

So, 10 pages in and no one has come up with a 1st century historian who mentioned Jesus. We know Josephus was a forgery.

Your turn, fundies.

They simply cannot because no historian beside Josephus mentions Jesus in the first or second century. A few mention "Chrestus" or "Christians" and Christians today claim these are mentions of Jesus but as I pointed out elsewhere Josephus writes of dozens of Jesuses, one who was whipped and tortured before being crucified and another who Josephus writes remained silent during his interrogation by the Roman procurator. Neither of these was Jesus called the Christ, although there were many Jesuses who referred to themselves or were referred to by others as "The Messiah".

Bottom line, Christians cannot name even one historian outside Josephus in 95 CE or so who mentions "Jesus called the Christ". That's why they smoke-screened 12 pages now of essentially nothing.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

They simply cannot because no historian beside Josephus mentions Jesus in the first or second century. A few mention "Chrestus" or "Christians" and Christians today claim these are mentions of Jesus but as I pointed out elsewhere Josephus writes of dozens of Jesuses, one who was whipped and tortured before being crucified and another who Josephus writes remained silent during his interrogation by the Roman procurator. Neither of these was Jesus called the Christ, although there were many Jesuses who referred to themselves or were referred to by others as "The Messiah".

Bottom line, Christians cannot name even one historian outside Josephus in 95 CE or so who mentions "Jesus called the Christ". That's why they smoke-screened 12 pages now of essentially nothing.

can't rep ya, so I will say it. I mean I can't because it won't let me.

trill, you are open and honest about your "agenda". I respect that.

[303Guy]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

They simply cannot because no historian beside Josephus mentions Jesus in the first or second century. A few mention "Chrestus" or "Christians" and Christians today claim these are mentions of Jesus but as I pointed out elsewhere Josephus writes of dozens of Jesuses, one who was whipped and tortured before being crucified and another who Josephus writes remained silent during his interrogation by the Roman procurator. Neither of these was Jesus called the Christ, although there were many Jesuses who referred to themselves or were referred to by others as "The Messiah".

Bottom line, Christians cannot name even one historian outside Josephus in 95 CE or so who mentions "Jesus called the Christ". That's why they smoke-screened 12 pages now of essentially nothing.

I'm only aware of Josephus mentioning one Jesus who got flogged then during the siege of Jerusalem walked up and down the wall saying "Woe is me" and got hit and killed by a Roman slingshot rock.

There is no reason why historians of the day should not have mentioned Christians and Jesus since there was this new religion about.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by 303Guy

I'm only aware of Josephus mentioning one Jesus who got flogged then during the siege of Jerusalem walked up and down the wall saying "Woe is me" and got hit and killed by a Roman slingshot rock.

There is also Jesus ben Damneus; a Jesus at the time of Artaxerxes (killed by his brother John); a Jesus at the time of Antiochus (brother of Onias, changed his name to Jason); another Jesus with a brother called Onias; and I think a few others.

Originally Posted by 303Guy

There is no reason why historians of the day should not have mentioned Christians and Jesus since there was this new religion about.

Maybe the original Jesus was not called Jesus (which simply means savior (and the Greek equivalent (Jason) means healer)).

[Matthew 4:4]

Jesus is the English version of his Hebrew name.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by normstad

Your question doesn't make any sense the way written. Can you rephrase?

No. Just reread it until you grasp it.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

The word usage is Eusebius (Olson), the text is patterned on the Road to Emmaus in Luke (Goldberg), the grammar in the TF is different to that of Josephus (Hopper).
That is not opinion, unlike your contribution, that is work done using sound methodology.
The arrogance of those who make assertions while ignorant of the work that demonstrates it is a forgery is what is mind-boggling.

Despite your denials it definitely IS opinion, unlike scientific results that are empirical. You can credit their opinions and THINK they are accurate, but that does NOT change their status as opinions.

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

The gospels and Acts are not written as histories (which followed a format); they have more magic in them than the Harry Potter stories; they are written in a literary style, and they are clearly based on the Old Testament.
The only texts in the NT that are historical are the letters (and Revelations) that tell us what the early Christians believed. Apart from 2 Peter, a mid 2nd century forgery based on the gospels, they tell us nothing about a historical Jesus.

How the heck do YOU know they were not written as histories? This artificial distinction between ancient writings that were collected into religious tomes for whatever reasons and so-called secular histories is bogus. It is an anti-religion bias pretending to know what are legitimate historical writings and what are not. It is a self-serving prejudice with no justification whatsoever.

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

Yes, Mystic trained Biblical historian CAN know with about 99% accuracy whether it is a forgery or not. There is radiocarbon dating which I'm sure you know about.
A better way in my opinion is examining the jargon in the text.. Let me demonstrate: 'neat'--50's, 'cool'--60's--'groovy'--late 60's/early 70's, 'awesome'--80's, 'kewl' (cool)--90's...........get the idea, Mystic?
Biblical paleontologists can date manuscripts to within decades sometimes of their writing using similar techniques in use of jargon unknown at earlier time than the words started appearing in lots of manuscripts of a certain period. So if I see a blog claiming to originate in the 50's that is using 'kewl' or 'ewwwwww' I know right away it's a fake just like scholars trained in ancient language know 2nd Peter is a forgery. How do you think most scholars were able to separate the six authentic epistles of Paul from the five forgeries?

The number of assumptions underlying those protocols are staggering and belie any such claim of 99% accuracy.

So atheists are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. Frankly, it is the Christians I find who are completely ignorant of their own holy book because they never read it so they don't know what's in it, whereas atheists have usually read it cover to cover. That's what turns lots of Christians to atheists in the first place: they actually read the Bible.

I agree about the level of biblical ignorance but you give the protocols far more credit than they deserve and ignore the rampant prejudice against any ancient writings that happen to be used for religious purposes. Writing has performed myriad purposes through the ages and incorporated multiple styles reflecting their eras. There are many, many ancient writings in the spiritual fossil record that have value and validity despite stylistic and mythological hyperbole and phrasing whether or not they were used for religious purposes.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Despite your denials it definitely IS opinion, unlike scientific results that are empirical. You can credit their opinions and THINK they are accurate, but that does NOT change their status as opinions.

For someone so verbose, I find it strange you do not understand the definition of 'opinion'. Or are you just denying the evidence because you do not like it? But if you want to ignore the improbable sequence of the TF matching that of the road to Emmaus incident, then I think we can ignore your opinion on this.

And if you want to argue that techniques that work on other texts do not work on religious ones, then you are welcome to that opinion as well. Just do not expect us to take you seriously.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

How the heck do YOU know they were not written as histories?

As I said, histories followed a format.

They include the name of the author.
The author includes themselves in the book if they play a role in that history.
They discuss their methodology and sources.
They analyze contradictions in their sources and address them where possible.
When the author is unsure of something, they comment on this.
Miracles, when they mentioned, are not major parts of the accounts.
Important characters do not appear and then disappear.
NONE of these are found in the gospels or Acts.

The gospels use a chiastic structure normally used for fiction.
The gospels plagiarize earlier gospels but 'correct' their theology.
The gospels contain conversations the author should not be aware of, such as Jesus talking to God in the garden of Gethsemane.
The stories and conversations are based on the Old Testament for theological reasons, such as the garden of Gethsemane conversation being based on the story of Jonah.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This artificial distinction between ancient writings that were collected into religious tomes for whatever reasons and so-called secular histories is bogus.

The evidence above refutes your opinion.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

It is an anti-religion bias pretending to know what are legitimate historical writings and what are not. It is a self-serving prejudice with no justification whatsoever.

Ha, the usual persecution complex straw man when you do not like that the evidence is against you.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by kjw47

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul= eyewitnesses.

Wrong on first three accounts. Not eye-witnesses. Matthew makes no direct claim in his gospel to being an eyewitness and heavily plagiarised Mark... …which an "eye-witness" wouldn't need to do.
Luke was not a follower of Jesus, he was a follower of Paul. Because some spurious stories about your man-god were circulating, Luke interviewed people who claimed to have known your man-god. So the Gospel of Luke is nothing more than second hand stories from people who claimed to have known this Jesus

Mark wrote down what Peter had told him about who Jesus was, what he did, where he went and what happened. Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, written down by Mark.

The Gospel of John was written far too long after the events to have been written by an eye-witness.

Originally Posted by Nerfball

Essentially all serious scholars, Christian and secular, accept the existence of Jesus as having been established beyond any reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately for you, the 'Jesus' that they accept existed is not the same Jesus that you want to have existed. It is only theologians and apologists that accept the existence of the Jesus that you want to have existed.

The historical evidence for Jesus is far more extensive and contemporary than the historical evidence for many other ancient figures whose existence is never doubted.

There is NO historical evidence for the Jesus that YOU want.

Originally Posted by Melchior6

Nevertheless there is passage where Josephus mentions the stoning of "James, the bother of Jesus" which many argue is legit.

Which Jesus? Josephus mentioned many Jesus'

1. Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest. Ant 15.322
2. Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple. War 6.300
3. Jesus, – High priest. Ant 12.239
4. Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias. War 2.566, War 2.599; Life 1.066, Life 1.134
5. Jesus, brother of Onias – High priest. Ant 12.237, Ant 12.238, Ant 12.239
6. Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest. Ant 20.213, Ant 20.223
7. Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus. War 4.238, War 4.316, War 4.325
8. Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest. Ant 20.203
9. Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend. War 4.160; Life 1.193, Life 1.204
10. Jesus, son of Nun – Successor to Moses. Ant 03.049, Ant 03.308; Ant 4.459
11. Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias, sallies against Vespasian's messenger Valerian. War 3.450
12. Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, delivers to Titus precious things deposited in the temple. War 6.387
13. Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest. Ant 20.231, Ant 20.234
14. Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600 followers, sent by Ananus & Jesus to depose Josephus. Life 1.200
15. Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ. Ant 18.063
16. Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, allies with Josephus. Life 1.105
17. Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ. Ant 20.200

In Antiquities of the Jews

11:298 Jesus, (son of Eliashib), brother of John – friend of governor Bagoses.
11:299 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.
11:300 Jesus, [son of Eliashib]
11:301 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.
12:237 Jesus, brother of Onias III – High priest.
12:238 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Deposed as High priest in favor of Onias = Menelaus
12:239 Jesus, younger brother of Onias = Menelaus – High priest.
12:239 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Renamed Jason. Revolts against Onias = Menelaus.
15:041 Jesus, (brother of Onias III)
15:322 Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest.
17:341 Jesus, the son of Sie – High priest.
18:063 Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ.
20:200 Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ.
20:203 Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest.
20:205 Jesus, [son of Damneus] – High priest.
20:213 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.
20.213 Jesus, son of Damneus – Deposed as High priest.
20:223 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.
20:234 Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest.

War
2:566 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
2:599 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
3:450 Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias.
3:452 Jesus, [son of Shapat]
3:457 Jesus, [son of Shapat] – Departs Tiberius to Taricheae
3:467 Jesus, [son of Shapat]
3:498 Jesus, [son of Shapat]
4:160 Jesus, son of Gamala – Best esteemed, with Ananus ben Ananus, of High priests.
4:238 Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus.
4:270 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:283 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:316 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:322 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:325 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:459 Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.
6:114 Jesus, no patronym – High priest, deserts to Vespasian.
6:300 Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple.
6:387 Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, deserts to Titus.

Life
1:066 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
1:067 Jesus, son of Sapphias – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:105 Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.
1:108 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]
1:109 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]
1:110 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]
1:134 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
1:178 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.
1:186 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.
1:193 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.
1:200 Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600, sent to depose Josephus.
1:204 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.
1:246 Jesus, no patronym – Owned a house big as a castle. Governor of Tiberias?
1:271 Jesus, no patronym – Governor of Tiberias.
1:278 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:294 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:295 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:300 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:301 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

...so which Jesus? There are many Jesus' above who, as High Priests might be referred to as 'Christ'

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Tacitus was dead by no later than the year 130. It's not physically possible he wrote that in the year 135. He was born in the first century. His work used official Roman sources from the first century (which are obviously now lost to us).

...and it is inconceivable that official Roman sources would have referred to 'Christ' so he didn't get his 'Jesus' info from official sources... which would support the likelihood that what he wrote was something that he had heard from Christians or other 'gossip'.

Which historians specifically are you referencing here who doubt the authenticity of this passage? Mainstream historians generally accept the authenticity of this passage.

It's possible that he did write it but not as it. There is evidence of later Christian interpolation.

Whether you like it or not most historians have accepted a person named Jesus existed at that time and was crucified and his death led to the creation of a major religion in the following centuries.

What 'most historians' accept is the possibility of some itinerant rebel, rabbi wandering around upsetting the authorities. Those historians do not accept that the Jesus of the gospels existed...and if the other Jesus was not the son of Yahweh as depicted in the gospels- then he is irrelevant to history.

The issue of a belief in the miracles, etc., claimed is separate from the historical existence of Jesus as a person.

So if the miracles were not true and 'Jesus' was just a rebel rabbi with no supernatural powers to save us from damnation, what good is he too us? Whether or not there was a historical 'Jesus' is quite irrelevant.

Originally Posted by BaptistFundie

There is that 'Damn! I don't have an answer' emoji again.

Originally Posted by Nerfball

It seems to me that this thread has waffled between the issue being the sufficiency of the evidence for the existence of the man Jesus as a first century Jew and the sufficiency of the evidence for believing this man was the Son of God as Christians maintain. The first issue is simply a non-starter.

Ok. So there was an itinerant rebel, rabbi wandering around and causing trouble in the 1st century...one of many hundreds no doubt. So what? How does that have any bearing on our life today?

As the clip from Bart Ehrman makes clear, 99.9% of all scholars, whether Christian, secular or atheist, don't regard the existence of Jesus as a serious issue.

So what. How does that present a case for Gospel Jesus?

Anyone who argues that Jesus didn't exist is, figuratively speaking, a flat earther. Unless one thinks 99.9% of scholars are delusional and the evidence on which they rely is bogus, ....

...and yet there is no evidence for them to base a claim for a historical Jesus.

There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All sources are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

The second issue is a legitimate one. Such evidence as there is has satisfied many of the best minds in all branches of science and philosophy for 2,000 years, including today.

See directly above. There is no evidence.

This fact alone is sufficient to show that a belief in the most extraordinary claims of Christianity isn't delusional or irrational.

Yes it is...because Christianity is following a Jesus that did not exist. They follow Jesus The Christ Son of Yahweh the Hebrew god of War...and that is not the 'Jesus' that 99.9% of historians accept existed.

Rational Christians don't deny the evidence is debatable. Most of us believe that (1) the best evidence supports even the most extraordinary Christian claims (for example, the Resurrection) and (2) most significantly, the truth of Christianity has been directly experienced by the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

...just as the workings of Ganesha have been experienced by Hindus huh?

I could tell you some truly extraordinary experiences in my own life that leave no doubt in my mind.

So could the followers of every other religion in existence. So you are either all deluded or the gods of all other religions exist. Which is it?

I wouldn't expect these experiences to carry any weight with someone else, but such experiences are almost dispositive for me and most other Christians.

Are the experiences of all other religious followers also valid?

Jesus was a small-town guy whose ministry was confined to a roughly 50-mile radius in a minor but troubled Roman province where the Jews were mostly regarded as an irritating nuisance. It's one of the fascinating aspects of Christianity that the Son of God appeared in these obscure circumstances.

Do you see where you are going wrong? You argue that 99.9% of historians argue for an itinerant rebel rabbi with no supernatural powers...and then you immediately make that person into a god when all the historians you use as authority do not accept the 'god' attributes of 'Jesus'.

Jesus' followers were largely illiterate, and communication was largely oral. People by and large were not taking notes, keeping diaries or writing letters.

Utter rubbish! Can you honestly sit there and expect us to believe that someone walking on water, raising the dead, feeding thousand with very little food and all the other alleged miracles would have gone un-noticed. Zombies rising from the grave and walking around Jerusalem, unexplained darkness - and nobody except one gospel writer noticed!

And yet: The ragtag group of dispirited disciples were transformed overnight into zealous proselytizers who were willing to die for their faith.

As many have done throughout history. If Muslims today are willing to die for what they believe, does it make the belief true?

Despite the threat of hideous Roman prosecution (and Jewish harassment), believers met in secret in home churches.

As do the followers of some religions still do in some parts of the world. What's your point.

Against all odds, the religion thrived and grew. These are undeniable historical facts.

The historical fact are that if Theodosius had not made it the official religion of the Roman Empire it would have lived and died as it was, an obscure religious blood sect.

Once it became the official religion, it had full reign to persecute and torture anyone that didn't sign up. Christianity didn't grow because it was true. It grew because people were only given two choices...convert or die.

The lack of notice by "first century historians" is, to me, a red herring in the light of what we do know occurred. If someone else regards it as a critical flaw in the Christian narrative, then we can only hope that additional documents will come to light.

...and you assume that any documents that come to light will be favourable to Christianity?

Originally Posted by jonesg

Ill see your bluff and raise you.

https://youtu.be/5M9pphsSLPs

Aaaahahaha! WCL. Another one from the Gary Habermas ranch who base all their evidence for the existence of Jesus on the Gospels being true!

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Which Jesus? Josephus mentioned many Jesus'

1. Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest. Ant 15.322
2. Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple. War 6.300
3. Jesus, – High priest. Ant 12.239
4. Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias. War 2.566, War 2.599; Life 1.066, Life 1.134
5. Jesus, brother of Onias – High priest. Ant 12.237, Ant 12.238, Ant 12.239
6. Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest. Ant 20.213, Ant 20.223
7. Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus. War 4.238, War 4.316, War 4.325
8. Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest. Ant 20.203
9. Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend. War 4.160; Life 1.193, Life 1.204
10. Jesus, son of Nun – Successor to Moses. Ant 03.049, Ant 03.308; Ant 4.459
11. Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias, sallies against Vespasian's messenger Valerian. War 3.450
12. Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, delivers to Titus precious things deposited in the temple. War 6.387
13. Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest. Ant 20.231, Ant 20.234
14. Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600 followers, sent by Ananus & Jesus to depose Josephus. Life 1.200
15. Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ. Ant 18.063
16. Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, allies with Josephus. Life 1.105
17. Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ. Ant 20.200

In Antiquities of the Jews

11:298 Jesus, (son of Eliashib), brother of John – friend of governor Bagoses.
11:299 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.
11:300 Jesus, [son of Eliashib]
11:301 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.
12:237 Jesus, brother of Onias III – High priest.
12:238 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Deposed as High priest in favor of Onias = Menelaus
12:239 Jesus, younger brother of Onias = Menelaus – High priest.
12:239 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Renamed Jason. Revolts against Onias = Menelaus.
15:041 Jesus, (brother of Onias III)
15:322 Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest.
17:341 Jesus, the son of Sie – High priest.
18:063 Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ.
20:200 Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ.
20:203 Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest.
20:205 Jesus, [son of Damneus] – High priest.
20:213 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.
20.213 Jesus, son of Damneus – Deposed as High priest.
20:223 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.
20:234 Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest.

War
2:566 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
2:599 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
3:450 Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias.
3:452 Jesus, [son of Shapat]
3:457 Jesus, [son of Shapat] – Departs Tiberius to Taricheae
3:467 Jesus, [son of Shapat]
3:498 Jesus, [son of Shapat]
4:160 Jesus, son of Gamala – Best esteemed, with Ananus ben Ananus, of High priests.
4:238 Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus.
4:270 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:283 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:316 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:322 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:325 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:459 Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.
6:114 Jesus, no patronym – High priest, deserts to Vespasian.
6:300 Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple.
6:387 Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, deserts to Titus.

Life
1:066 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
1:067 Jesus, son of Sapphias – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:105 Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.
1:108 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]
1:109 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]
1:110 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]
1:134 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
1:178 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.
1:186 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.
1:193 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.
1:200 Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600, sent to depose Josephus.
1:204 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.
1:246 Jesus, no patronym – Owned a house big as a castle. Governor of Tiberias?
1:271 Jesus, no patronym – Governor of Tiberias.
1:278 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:294 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:295 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:300 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:301 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

Excellent list, much better than mine.