@ Trav

No, there are no contemporary to his life commentaries about a jesus figure as described in the gospels. Lets look at Tacitus, writing very late in the 1st century...

Tacitus and that Jesus Passage:

Tacitus was a Roman Historian writing at the turn of the 1st Century CE, i.e between 90CE and 120CE. Many theists make much of a brief mention of a “Chrestus” and use it to bolster their beliefs without ever realising what the passage actually says.

Just to make sure no fantasy mad theist argues the point here is the passage in English and Latin:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”

In Latin: ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. [Wiki]

The most anyone can get out of this rather inaccurate passage (Pilate was Prefect not Procurator and there was not an 'immense multitude" of christians anywhere much less in Rome in 60CE) Is that a Jewish Cult of Chrestus was in Rome in about 64CE according to reports some 30 - 50 years later. That those "christians" ( they were not called that then) were despised by the populace and many were killed. That is all.

Not very convincing evidence for an actual gospel Jesus, even for a rabid theist now is it?

Josephus has but two entries that mention a Jesus. The first is now recognised by nearly all scholars as a 3rd century interpolation (the good man entry) aka, a FAKE

The second entry is where Jospehus is writing about the Temple at Jerusalem, in particular he mentions James and here we have the rub...does the entry say Brother of Jesus? or Brother IN jesus? It it is brother "of" Jesus, then either the jesus referred to is not the divine godly jesus of the gospels ( james is the "elder brother') or the passage refers to another Jesus altogether which is entirely likely if not probable as the Jesus referred to was probably one of the High Priests for whom we have records.
If brother "in" Jesus than it may be argued that James was a member of the messanaic jewish cult that hailed the Jesus figure as "the perfect man" and the ADOPTED (not divine) son of god. Not the divine magical zombie as described in the gospels.

Any other writers you want to bring up? I notice you said among others they must have esacaped my notice as , apart form Paul NO ONE until about 75CE mentions a jesus figure at all...not once. anywhere.

it's a pretty safe bet to acknowledge that the man existed with the evidence we have.

So, based on your own evidence, not it isn't a "safe bet". The existence of a magical zombie 'sonofgod jesus' is improbable.

That a 1st centruy jesus figure existed that gave rise to the tales and legends embroidered about him is NOT PROVEN.

I would not be taking bets on that basis.