The gospel of Mark is the worst written of all four. The greek is unsophisticated, the connections between pericopes are jumpy (Mark constantly employs kai euthus as an elementary way to construct his narrative), and Mark shows the least literary skill of all. The author of Luke/Acts not only uses better greek, but is self-consciously historical and much better at taking disparate components of the oral tradition, Mark, and Q (if Q was written) and creating a coherent narrative. John contains some pretty sophisticated prose. And what do you mean by "the Original?"
That is why i prefer "Mark", other are poorly written, and does not have the pointless birth narrative, and is said to be closest to Ur-Marcus.
The Book of Mark never states that "Joseph" was the father of "Jesus", the only Joseph to appear was "Joseph of Arimathea", and because he took him off the "Cross", after Jesus cried "Eli-Eli", the author of Matthew/Luke, then guessed "Joseph" to be the "Father" henceforth "Jesus, Son of Joseph"
How did "Joseph" become the "Father" of Jesus
One man will be obliged to hear the voice of his son implore help of his father, when his hands are bound.(Wars of the Jews, b. VII, ch. X, v. VII)
Jesus cried to his father "Eli", Joseph of Arimathea unbound him from the Cross
and then in Luke.
Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli "ELI"
Gospel of Luke ommits "Eli-Eli"
Luke 23:46
And speaking in a loud voice, Jesus said, "
Father, into your hands I commit my spirit".
And calls to his
Father
The Author of "Luke" was confused, he omitted "Eli" phrase from Jesus' last word on the cross in "Luke 23:46"
and places "Eli" as the father of "Joseph", and in "Luke 3:23" (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, "Luke" and later "Matthew" thus "Invented" Joseph as the father of "Jesus", based on "Joseph of Arimatheas" appearance in Mark., because Jesus cried to "Father" (Eli) and "Joseph" came.
Luke thus wrote "Son of (Supposed) of "Joseph" (Son of Eli), (Eli = God), Luke wrote this because he not know if either "Joseph" or "Eli" was Jesus' father.
This Proofs that "Joseph" being father of "Jesus" was a fabrication, also "Matthew" writes "Joseph Son of Jacob"
clearly copied from Genesis, "Joseph Son of Jacob" as well as his dreams.
----(John-Matthew-Luke fattened the Gospels with nonesene from Old Testament)----
Joseph inspired from his pseudo name sake of Genesis
Matthew-Luke-John (Plagiarisms)
He was the favorite son of a wealthy father Gen. 37:3 Matt. 3:17
He was a shepherd Gen. 37:2 John 10:11-14
He was taken into Egypt to avoid being killed Gen. 37:28 Matt. 2:13
He became a servant Gen. 39:4 Phil. 2:7
He began his ministry at the age of thirty Gen. 41:46 Luke 3:23
He was filled with the Spirit of God Gen. 41:38 Luke 4:1
He returned good for evil Gen.50:20 Matt. 5:44
He was humble and unspoiled by wealth Gen. 45:7-8 John 13:12
He was taught by God Gen. 41:16 John 5:19
He loved people freely Gen. 45:15 John 13:34
He gained the confidence of others quickly Gen. 39:3 Matt. 8:8
He resisted the most difficult temptations Gen. 39:8-9 Heb. 4:15
He was given vision into the future Gen. 37:6 Matt. 24:3
He was hated for his teachings Gen. 37:8 John 7:7
He was sold for the price of a slave Gen. 37:28 Matt. 26:15
He was condemned between two prisoners Gen. 40:2-3 Luke 23:32
He was dead before his father Gen. 37:33 Luke 23:46
He was held for two, and was free on the third Gen. 41:1 Luke 9:22
He was not recognized by his own brethren Gen. 42.8 Luke 24:37
Mat-Luke- also fabricated Jesus, as being born Bethlehem (Bethleham NEVER appeared in Book of Mark either, but rather,
was a Galilean. (copied birth location of David)
Jesus was from Galilee. He was a Galilean." (Pike & Kennedy, 1972, p. 61)
Book of Mark as the least Plagiarisms, and is written similar to Odysseus, making "Jesus"
a "Hero" like the other Greek "Heros", (Matthew-Luke-John) all lost the plot and wrote with an
"Agenda" in mind.
Matthew-Luke also as the complete useless Bloodline narrative (son of.. Son of .. ), no need for them at all.
Matthew-Luke as pointless Virgin Birth narrative clearly stolen from Isaiah
That is why i prefer Mark (Self-Edited version off course, deleting all the Useless Isaiah Interpolations)