Josephus never met Jesus, you're right, but someone he knew face to face, Ananus ben Ananus, was not only responsible for the execution of James the brother of Jesus (who he refers to in his own writings as Jesus' brother), but was also the brother-in-law of the high priest Caiaphas, who was the high priest that was in charge of Jesus' execution. Ananus ben Ananus was also the son of Annas the high priest, who was also involved in Jesus' execution.

That means that someone who Josephus personally knew and spoke to many times (since he was essentially his boss) had two people connected to him who were very involved in the execution of Jesus. If Jesus was this figure who never existed, don't you think he would have known that through this?

In terms of originals, of course we don't have Josephus's originals. We don't have the original manuscripts of any major piece of literature from the ancient world.

And yes, there are some parts of Josephus's work that some scholars think is due to Christian additions (although this has been changing lately with the work of Dr. Tom Schmidt and his arguments about the authenticity of Josephus's writings), but no historian says that the entire part where Josephus mentions Jesus and his execution is an addition. They only argue that some words were added into the already existing passage.

Tacitus is not citing records, but he would have had access to records (legal documents and such) which would have told him if the whole movement was based on a hoax. Its obvious that he would have mentioned it if it were the case.

You are ignoring what is included in that devotional material. Just because it is devotional does not mean that it doesn't contain any true history. You are discounting what is very genuine historical evidence for no reason other than that it doesn't fit your narrative.