One thing to consider also, is where the scrolls came from. Many scrolls were not committed to paper for 100s to 1000s of years after the events took place. That's a lot of word-of-mouth passed down for a lot of generations. I don't recall any stories of which disciples were the designated stenographers or note takes. Not a lot of people running around with a pencil and a pad of paper to take notes. When the Bible has people "quoting" God or Jesus, how did that work, and how accurate could they be?
I have heard researchers claim that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written until somewhere between 200-300 AD. They were written by others as if in the first person.
If finally written down after passing the stories down for several generations, or if the scrolls had been copied by hand several times, it's hard to overlook the impact of the writer person bias, or a religious groups bias. Ehhh - I think he probably really meant .. Or let's embellish that part a little so it sounds good. Or I think he would have said ..
So exact translations based on the language and/or era are really secondary. A perfectly translations means little if the original sources cannot be verified. Some may actually be completely fictional - they just seemed to fir the narrative of the Bible and were thrown in there.
On the flip side, there were very factual gospels, that didn't make the cut because the Council of Nicaea's opinion of what the overall narrative should be.