I think it’s important to remember that most ancient literature you read is a translation of a recension of what would have been corrupted oral transmission till it was first transcribed. Let’s take the Odyssey for example. Listening to it in Epic/Homeric Greek is melodic, beautiful and with instruments playing in the back ground really immersive. But by the time writing was re-adopted in Greece no one spoke or casually understood the weird mishmash of Ionian and Aeolic dialects that was Homeric Greek. Thus, when the Odyssey was transcribed in Attic Greek, the rhyming turn-of-verse and metre was slightly diluted and made more ‘formal’ for better understanding. When these were finally translated further on, into more languages, the metre was lost further. The first known English translation of the Iliad for example was in 1581 by Arthur Hall, over 2000 years after the poem had been standardised! But the English within it possesses spelling that’s not familiar to most. So let’s compare three translations:

Alexander Pope’s in 1715, one I consider very poetic. Not an accurate translation but it captures the gusto of the opening verse:

Achilles' wrath, to Greece the direful spring Of woes unnumber'd, heavenly goddess, sing!

Charles Bagot’s in 1877, one that would be considered ‘posh’, and I personally think it’s a decent translation! I think this one hits on what you’re talking about, how the ‘Jane Austen-style’ literature from the 19th and early 20th centuries seems very boring for a modern audience.

Muse, of Pelidéan Achilles sing the resentment Ruinous, who brought down many thousand griefs on Achaians

Finally let’s look at a very modern one which sounds a lot more poetic, retains the energy of the original poem but remains interesting.

The rage of Achilles—sing it now, goddess, sing through me the deadly rage that caused the Achaeans such grief

So there we are three different translations, with three varying degrees of engagement, authenticity and poetics. But it’s also important to note that these are poems and big works, the Bible and the Odyssey. If you take an excerpt from a play of Aristophanes or Euripides or Kalidasa (if you’re interested in an Indian example) there are examples of the speech of common people. For example I’m currently translating the first line of Aristophanes’ ‘Clouds’. If I wish to provide a ‘broad translation’ it would go like this, where a man by the name of Strepsiades has just woken up from a bad dream and laments:

“Damnit! King Zeus, this night doesn’t seem to end.”

Now if I was to give a more literal translation, with emphasis on words rather than translating the emotion, it would read as:

“Alas, alas! O’ Zeus the King! The length of the night is so much as endless.”

Seems a lot more dramatic doesn’t it? So it basically comes down to translation. Is the translator going for the emotion or a literal translation of the words, since emphasis changes through languages. The best translators will be able to strike a balance between both.