Earnest....Unfortunately this thread has gotten so long that it may not be easy to see that I have already discussed that point in detail. Indeed, I agree that the English word "cross" differs from stauros in denoting not just the instrument used in crucifixion but also a particular shape. The English word is polysemous in that respect, and I am sure that in the absence of specific information about what ancient "crucifixion" consisted of, most casual readers would not keep the two senses of the word apart. That is unfortunate because, in fact, the crux simplex is properly called a "cross" throughout the scholarly literature where "cross" is simply "the instrument used in crucifixion" (that is, defined according to its function). Just to cite one example out of many, we read in the Dictionary of the Apostolic Church that "there were generally two forms of cross used in capital punishment: the crux simplex, which consisted of a single stake to which the victim was fastened or upon which he was impaled; also the crux compacta. The latter was made of two pieces of wood" (p. 266). Or one could cite William C. Prime's Holy Cross which says that "the forms of the cross were various; the Greek words stauros and skolops and the Latin crux were applied to all these forms. The simple cross was a stake or a single piece of wood" (p. 15-16). If you read the translations of the classics in the Loeb Classical Library series, you can see that "cross" is the usual word that renders stauros and crux in the vast majority of cases where the form of the device is not clear from context. The standard word for the device used in crucifixion is "cross"; there really isn't a word in English that comes as close.
Of course, the English word also denotes a geometric form as well and reniaa is probably not the only one who assumes that "cross" necessarily implies "cross-shaped". But if the references to crucifixion in the gospels presume the composite cross as I believe they do, then this really doesn't matter since one uses the appropriate word for the given context. One could easily find examples in which the English word used in translation does not precisely match the semantics of the original Hebrew or Greek word; this is probably more often the case than not. But nobody gets hung up over the use of English "book" to render Hebrew sepher and Greek biblion; no one insists that "scroll" must be used instead to prevent anyone from assuming that the form was that of a bound volume with individual leaves. No one really cares. If it really is a perceived problem, one could simply have a footnote or appendix explaining that "cross" potentially refers to a range of crucifixion devices but that X is probably what the text presumes. After all, that is what the NWT did with respect to the use of the word "soul" to render nephesh and psukhé. Appendix 4A explained that while the word "soul" is used, it doesn't have the usual sense it has outside the Bible. But if one really wants to be anal and leave the form of the referrent wholly underspecified, then one would have to use an awkward circumlocution or neologism (other than transliterating the term). As I discussed in detail in my previous post, I do not believe that "torture stake" and "impalement" cut it. These are just as much biased in the opposite direction as "cross" is perceived to be in favor of a composite cross. This is especially the case in light of the fact that "torture stake" is without exception described and depicted artistically as a stake lacking a patibulum. Since this is a neologism that derives its meaning as much from its usage in other Watchtower publications as it does within the NWT, there isn't much in the usage of the term that suggests that a torture stake can have a crossbeam. I doubt that the first thing that pops in a reader's head when they picture a "torture stake" is a composite cross. Yet Greek writers who were explicit on the subject presented the composite cross as the typical form of the stauros, not the crux simplex. "Torture stake" fails to capture this connotation. And while crucifixion was torturous, the goal was not merely torture but execution. "Impalement" is even worse because it suggests a stake piercing and passing through the body, not a stake to which a person is nailed or tied. Also there is no word more precise than "crucifixion" to refer to this kind of execution practiced by the Romans; "impalement" is usually thought of as a distinctly different form of execution than Roman crucifixion. So instead of "torture stake", if one must adopt a circumlocution to render stauros, it should imo be something more like "crucifixion instrument" or "apparatus on which one is crucified" or some such phrase.
I really don't care that much about translation and more about grasping the basic facts about crucifixion itself. It is of course up to the judgment of the translator to choose the appropriate wording. Nearly all translations I have seen of the Greek and Latin classics and the NT do not eschew the word "cross" and do not see this as an issue at all. But what I am really more interested in is the factual basis of the arguments by the Society that stauros and crux only meant "stake". Regardless of how one evaluates the biblical evidence on the form of Jesus' cross, the fallacies and errors in argumentation (e.g. the etymological fallacy, the selective quoting of Lucian, the wrong claims about Livy, etc.) speak for themselves, and I think that is where the main significance should lie.
