A hundred thousand casualties…the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them.

These numbers seem incredibly high.  Various explanations have been suggested.

1. Supernatural event.  Older commentators tend to understand the numbers literally, and find a supernatural explanation.  With regard to the figure of 27,000, Barnes, for example, thinks that a ‘terrific earthquake’ took place.  But this is conjecture, and, in any case, still does not explain the large number of victims.

Poole says that such ‘might possibly happen through natural causes; but most probably was effected by the mighty power of God, then sending some sudden earthquake, or violent storm of wind, which threw down the wall, or walls, upon them; or doing this by the ministry of angels; which cannot be incredible to any man, except to him that denies the truth of all the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.’  Poole adds: ‘But it may be further observed, that it is not said that all these were killed by the fall of this wall; but only that the wall fell upon them, killing some, and wounding others, as is usual in those cases. Nor is it necessary that the wall should fall upon every individual person; but it is sufficient to justify this phrase, if it fell upon the main body of them.’

2. Scribal error.  Wiseman writes: ‘the “thousand” (’elep) might be revocalized without change of consonants to “officer” (’allûp). One hundred casualties a day in ancient warfare was heavy. Similarly the 27,000 killed in Aphek would include everyone in the city when the walls fell. This would remind the Israelites of the victory at Jericho (Josh. 6), otherwise the number might represent twenty-seven officers killed.’  Other scholars have thought the ‘elep might mean ‘clan’, ‘troop’ or ‘squad’.  This interpretation is favoured by J.W. Wenham, J. B. Payne, C. J. Humphries, and others.  Critics point out that this interpretation relies on the (dubious?) view that Hebrew scribes misunderstood their own language (not only here, but in a number of places in the OT where there are similarly large numbers).

3. Symbolic or fictitious interpretation.  Some modern commentators think that the number is to be taken non-literally.  Provan writes: ‘It is difficult to imagine any ancient city wall large enough to have literally collapsed on 27,000 people (v. 30). The parallel being drawn with Jericho may be playing its part in the presentation here: this was a great disaster for Israel’s enemies, Jericho-like in its proportions.’

DeVries (WBC) is evidently not interested in the text as a historical record: ‘The conclusion is highly stylized: for seven days the opposing armies face each other (cf. Josh 6:12–21); then on one single day of battle (cf. “today,” v 13) 100,000 Syrians are struck down. As though this were not sufficiently amazing, the Jehuite redactor summons Aphek’s wall (like Jericho’s?) to annihilate 27,000 more (v 30a).’

4. Hyperbole.  Proponents of this view argue that the very large numbers are consistent with the literary and historiographic conventions of the day.  According to Fouts (DOT:HB), ‘This view allows for the key term ʾlp to retain its normally understood meaning of “thousand,” thereby obviating the need to appeal to consistent scribal misunderstanding. It has the support of numerous ancient Near Eastern parallels of material of similar genre that exhibit the same numerical hyperbole. It also has the benefit of allowing the texts to continue to bear witness to actual historical events, albeit couched in literary terms intended to convey to the reader the greatness and glory of God.’

Fouts remarks: ‘The question arises as to why Israel sacrificed accurate accounting in its historical documents on the altar of literary convention by employing numerical hyperbole in the narrative accounts. The reason appears to be somewhat simple: the nations around them used numerical hyperbole to glorify a given king; the writers of Israel’s history did the same to glorify the King of kings (or one of his theocratic rulers).’