Berlin, A. Esther. JPS. JPS, 2001 (110 pp.).  With a growing number of Jewish and Christian scholars, B understands Esther to be “implausible as history” and suggests that “imaginative storytelling” is a better description of the book, the ancient equivalent of what today might be called “historical fiction.” For B, this does not compromise the message of Esther since the book itself is more a study on how to regard history as a domain of God’s activity than it is a list of claims about what happened long ago. Moreover, the power of the book’s message can be seen in the way it has inspired centuries of faithful observance of Purim, which continues to the present. B is among the most accomplished practitioners of literary analysis, and her commentary is no exception. Some of the discussion is technical and will require a knowledge of Hebrew to benefit from everything included, yet it is accessible enough not to discard for its challenge.

Bush, F. Ruth/Esther. WBC. Word, 1996 (514 pp.).  The most technical of the commentaries reviewed here, which is not to say it isn’t useful. Quite to the contrary, nearly all the other commentaries cite B, and there are plenty of fruitful and preachable moments.  Heavy attention to grammar, syntax, and literary structure drives the commentary (over against ‘story’ as in Laniak).  An ideal read alongside Berlin’s above for those who have just completed first year Hebrew and would like to study Esther, and a good resource for bolstering (or correcting) initial interpretations of the text by consulting a very close and thorough reading.

Jobes, K. H. Esther. NIVAC. Zondervan, 1999 (248 pp.).  Contains a somewhat simplistic discussion of Esther’s historicity, a preoccupation that seems ironic for an NIVAC volume, with its focus on ‘application’ (the ‘A’ in NIVAC).  One might reckon that granting permission to Esther to be concerned with something other than historical accuracy would make it easier to “bridge the context” between the “original meaning” and its “contemporary significance” (the threefold structure of NIVAC commentaries) since a story that is not locked into a specific historical context is precisely one that is easier to apply to a variety of alternative contexts. This point notwithstanding, J offers many good insights and helpful discussions at a nontechnical level.

Reid, D. Esther. TOTC. InterVarsity, 2008 (168 pp.).  Short, readable, and more sensitive to points raised against Jobes above. Although R’s is not itself a feminist interpretation, there is a helpful discussion of the contributions both traditional and feminist studies have made to Esther, with appreciation and critique for the latter. R provides a summary of literary issues at play in the book (genre, characterization, mood, pace, etc.) and returns to them here and there in the commentary section. Esther’s position within and relation to the rest of canon, as well as longer versions of the story found elsewhere, helpfully round out the discussion about the book and its status as scripture. But the best canonical observations (how the canon is shaped by and shapes the book’s theological contributions) are actually made in the “Theology and Purpose” section closing R’s introduction. The commentary is not technical, and no Hebrew is required.