Didymus

The answer is, in a word, yes.

If you're applying the term "posthumously" to Jesus, your question would cover from 33 AD to the present time. So what period are you referring to?

I answered "Josephus" to the OP because he a) the TF is mainly about Jesus, not just about Christians, as is the case with the Tacitus passage, and b) in the unlikely event some variation of the TF is authentically Josephan, it would be the first non-Christian writing about Jesus. (I don't think there's a snowball's chance that the Brother of the Lord passage is authentic.)

By "other Romans," do you mean writers who lived in the Roman Empire? Or only citizens of the Roman Empire? Would you exclude Roman Christians, like the anonymous authors of the gospels and especially Acts, the first ersatz history of the early church? Or Ignatius, Polycarp, Ireneaus, and Clement of Rome? (Surely you'd consider Clement of Rome to be a Roman!) What about Josephus, a Jew who is usually considered to be a Jewish historian, but who lived in Rome and worked for the Flavians? Eusebius was a Roman citizen and also a writer of ersatz Christian history who died ca 340 CE; would you include him?

I know that some people use "Roman" as shorthand for "non-Christian" or "pagan," but unless you ask a well-defined question, you won't get a well-defined answer. And with the term "Roman," you slight an important fact: the earliest Christians lived in the Roman Empire, and some were even Roman citizens.

Sheshbazzar

"Can't say "sh", spin? really they "can't"? or just don't, or won't?

Millions of Greek speaking people have proven to be able to learn how to pronounce and say "sh", just as well as any other nationality.

Do really think that it was impossible for the Ephraimites to amend their speech and correctly repeat the word shibboleth?

I posit that they were all perfectly capable of doing so, but along with being arrogant about being the majority, they simply refused to hear, acknowledge, or maintain the distinction, or to recognize any import or significance in what they were being asked, and so being full of their own words and ways, naturally spoke in the manner that they were accustomed to, and were comfortable with.

Truely, there is a "majority" of this, and there is a "majority" of that, all being in majority, is easily to be found to be sure.
But digging into and mining Scripture for its precious jewels, for its gold and for its silver, one needs recognise that the majority of what is being dug up and brought out, is only fit for the heaps of tailings and dross.
The precious stones, and the nuggets of gold, silver, and copper always are that which is rare and comprise the minority.
A towering waste heap, impressive though it may appear, is nothing of value in comparison to a perfect diamond that is in hand. The gem is small, but the tailings heap is large.
Majority or minority, some do not perceive, nor know which has the more value. Willingly I will surrender the tons of tailings, but will retain the few precious ounces.
The difference and the distinction stands.

David M. Payne

I don't know, but there is plenty of info here to answer my question, so thanks all.

David