It was the scholars looking at various comparisons of the ancient documents who did the work.
Since the ancient documents have varied so little over time, why do you have issues with them and claim they are more fallible than popes?
Of course they did not individually translate anything but they selected the scholars and influenced the path taken to “translate”. The scholars were men who held position based on their social and political position with regard to the monarch. The process has all of the same aspects as politically appointed judges who foul the Constitution with their individual and politically influenced interpretations of the founding document.
I have no belief in the infallibility of the pope any more than I believe that the old testament is completely literal truth. I am adenominational. Churches of whatever denomination are contrivances of men with their own interpretations of what the scriptures mean and more importantly how they should be interpreted. They all believe one way or the other that they are correct (infallible) and that all others will not see salvation if they don’t believe the same way they do. If they didn’t believe this way they would not be a separate denomination. I don’t feel the need to base my beliefs in God on any flawed human being’s interpretation of what he/she believes to be God’s word.