You think so? On the flimsy evidence here?
But only the Authorized Version is a literal translation from the true Byzantine/Majority Greek. The others are from the synthetic corrupted Critical (Westcott & Hort type) text, and some are even dynamic equivalency in their hermeneutic, not literal equivalency in their translation, as the AV is.
(1) Al these modern versions left out the word "elders," presbuteroi, which is determinative in which form the Sanhedrin took (as assembled at Annas' domicile, versus as later at Caiaphas' quarters) and so just excising this one word alone (and there are many such similar instances when comparing the Greek sources), thus eventually forcing one to choose as to whether the Received Text continuously preserved and in the possession of the churches (for almost two thousand years in thousands of copies); or whether the Westcott & Hort/Nestle-Aland/Bruce Metzger/United Bible Society synthetic text cobbled together from principally three corrupted traditions not even agreeing with one another--and coming to light only in the 1870s--is the real Greek New Testament not only in canonicity, but also in actual word content.
(2) The verb dzaytehoh, "to seek", is not translated anywhere by the AV nor by Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon as having the sense "to look for." The translators of this verb gave the meaning of "be (go) about, desire, endeavour, enquire (for), require, (X will) seek (after, for, means)" which excludes the sense of "look". Thayers gives it the lexical value of:
(1) to seek in order to find
..1a) to seek a thing
..1b) to seek [in order to find out] by thinking, meditating, reasoning, to enquire into
..1c) to seek after, seek for, aim at, strive after
(2) to seek, i.e. require, demand
..2a) to crave, demand something from someone
(3) Furthermore, the verb is in the imperfect tense, active voice, indicative mode, third person plural. This is expressed as the simple past continuous activity, so that the correct meaning is best expressed as "sought," as in the AV. All the other versions employ the participle, which means that their renderers are not merely translating, but also interpreting and indoctrinating as they go, without apprising the reader that they are doing so. In contrast, when the translators of the AV add extra words for clarity, they italicize such words so the reader is warned. Yes, the reader may find that the English rendering has ambiguity when literally translated, requiring study of the Greek for a deeper sense of the nuances, but they limit their work to translating, a far more legitimate effort.
(4) Furthermore, the verb thanatawoh, "to make dead" or "to put-to-death" is in the aorist tense, active voice, subjunctive mode, third person plural; while it is legitimate to render this with "might" (perform an activity, as a future probability)), but using "could" gives the sense of justifying a capability, which is stretching the translation to include a meaning not linguistically correct. In fact, the "might" can also be left out, since here the intent was not probablistic at all, for they killed Him, finding a false testimony, pseudomarterian, to do so--not that "maybe they could," but that they did.
A proper look at this verse yields to me the conclusion that neither in the Greek nor in the English can I rely on these modern versions. Therefore, I am firmly settled on the King James Authorized Version alone for personal overview and study; and recognizing the AV's limitations, the exegesis of the underlying Koine or Hebrew/Aramaic to search out the deep things of the Holy Spirit in the language He used, with recognized authoritative commentators to alert one for the meaning of the verse in the greater context.
I really don't trust any seminarian who uses the critical eclectic text and modern versions of which he can select one that agrees with his interpretations. I won't go to their churches nor read much of their study guides, for you don't know when they will deceive you to forward their own interests above those of the Lord's.
I included the King James version among the sample translations of Matthew 26:59. That translation, as well as any you might attempt on your own, will arrive at the same general sense. There are occasions where serious controversy arises over the translation of the text, but these are relatively small in number. As far as I can tell, the NASB is one of the better, literal translations. To make a mountain out of minor differences in translation is like making a mountain out of whether Fords and Chevys are both vehicles or not. I would add that “meat in due season” today does not mean what it meant in the 15th Century unless one cares further to explore the text.
FWIW, we generally use the Orthodox Study Bible,http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Study_Bible#Translation, for daily use. We use Byzantine Greek in our Liturgies.
Koine Greek is not an easy language to learn Byzantine Greek isn’t too hard at all. A working understanding of those languages gives “cultural context” to the words of Scripture.