Who Wrote Esther?

Updated: Jul 7

Dear Roger and Friends,

I came across your website while searching for information on who wrote Esther. Some of what you wrote led me to believe you may be open to a particular theory. Given that the book of Esther is a firsthand account, and since it includes a significant amount of detail regarding the events, why haven’t theologians and Bible scholars postulated that Esther may be the author? Why wouldn’t a woman be considered as a potential contributor to some of the books of the Bible?

Thank you!

Jenna

Dear Jenna,

Thank you for giving so much thought to a biblical question that isn’t often addressed but does have great significance. Before we dig into the nitty gritty of the text, history, and culture surrounding Esther, please note that we do NOT know with certainty who wrote the book of Esther. It is anonymous. Because of that, we must hold our conclusions with humility.

INTRODUCTION

The book of Esther is a wild ride with profound application to our lives today. In Mike Cosper’s book Faith Among the Faithless, Cosper argues that in this tale of sex, ego, and revenge set in a pluralistic, pagan society is relevant for anyone living in the modern West. Like other authors, Cosper also challenges some of our Sunday School readings that ignore the challenges of Mordecai and Esther’s own complicity in moral compromises. Like us, Esther is a complicated woman who, while being a hero of the faith, is not sinless.

Your suggestion that Esther herself may have written all or part of the book is certainly possible. Unlike some biblical books, the book of Esther never identifies its author. The most prominent authorship possibilities that scholars have proposed are:

Mordecai (based partly on Esther 9:20, where Mordecai records events connected to Purim).
A Jewish court official living in Persia.
A later Jewish historian or compiler who had access to Persian records and eyewitness traditions.
Or, (less commonly) Esther herself.

Most conservative scholars today tend to favor an author who lived relatively close to the events and who had access to Persian court customs and records.

Could Esther have been the author?

It's possible, though there is no direct evidence. Arguments in favor:

The events which involve her specifically are written with much more detail than those that don’t (contrasted with the events involving Mordecai).
The book contains intimate details about Esther's experiences and the workings of the royal court.
At places, the narrative even shares Esther’s emotions.
Some scenes reflect the perspective of someone close to Esther.
It would be a mistake to assume Esther could not read or write simply because she was a woman. The events of Esther take place in the Persian Empire, and Esther became a powerful queen. While literacy was not widespread in the ancient world, women in royal households often had access to education, scribes, and administrative resources that ordinary people did not possess. Therefore, Esther's literacy is entirely plausible, even if it cannot be proven.
Ancient works were often based on eyewitness testimony, even when another person served as the final writer.

Arguments against:

The book frequently speaks about Esther in the third person.
The narrative style feels more like a historical account than a personal memoir.
References to official records (Esth. 2:23; 6:1; 10:2) suggest the author may have been compiling multiple sources.
Esther contains information that Esther herself likely would not have known firsthand (for example, conversations, decisions, and events occurring outside her presence, as well as details extending beyond her personal experience).

The evidence so far leaves us uncertain about the probability of Esther’s authorship.

What about tone and the lack of God’s name?

Some have said that the portions of the story that include her are written with a noticeable humility compared to those typically written by men, which often seem more authoritarian, or which may possess a greater amount of certainty in their tone. However, literary style is one of the more difficult forms of evidence to evaluate. Readers can perceive the same text quite differently.

Some may detect a feminine voice, while others may simply see the humility and restraint characteristic of biblical narrative generally (consider Matthew and John’s frequent admission of the lack of the apostles’ faith in the gospels, for instance). For that reason, most scholars are hesitant to draw conclusions about authorship from tone alone.

I am not persuaded that the absence of God's name points to female authorship. The omission of God's name is one of the most discussed features of Esther, and scholars have proposed many explanations. Some believe it highlights God's hidden providence working behind the scenes. Others suggest the author was writing for Jews living in exile within a Persian context. Whatever the explanation, the book consistently points to God's providential care even though His name never appears. Most scholars view this omission as a literary and theological choice rather than evidence regarding the author's gender.

For those reasons, many scholars conclude that Esther's testimony likely stands behind portions of the book even if she was not the final author.

What about the historicity of Esther?

This is where the debate becomes more significant.

Critical scholars have sometimes questioned Esther's historicity because:

Esther is not mentioned in surviving Persian records.
The book contains dramatic reversals and literary features that resemble a novella.
Some details cannot be independently verified.

Conservative scholars generally respond that:

Our surviving Persian records are fragmentary and omit countless historical figures.
The book demonstrates remarkable familiarity with Persian customs, court procedures, and geography.
Many details once questioned have proven consistent with what we know about the Persian Empire.
The author repeatedly appeals to official records and archives, suggesting an intention to write history rather than fiction.

Most evangelical scholars, therefore, view Esther as a fundamentally historical account, even while recognizing its sophisticated literary artistry. In other words, a book can be carefully structured, beautifully written, and theologically purposeful while still describing real events.

Could women have contributed to biblical authorship?

There are four notable possibilities of books with female authorship in the Bible: Esther, Ruth, Song of Songs, and Hebrews. Half of the verses of Song of Songs are spoken by a female, and some scholars have argued that the imagery centers on a woman’s perspective of romance and desire.

While Samuel is traditionally ascribed authorship of Ruth, the book is anonymous, and some literary scholars argue that the intimate focus on female survival, mother-in-law dynamics, and domestic life indicates it may have been written or originally passed down by a woman. Hebrews is also anonymous. Scholars have suggested that the author could be Apollos, Barnabas, Paul, Luke, or Priscilla and Aquilla (although the masculine singular verb in Hebrews 11:32 makes it less likely).

As for women contributing to Scripture more broadly, it is important to remember that women played a significant role in the transmission of biblical revelation even when they were not the final writers of biblical books.

Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Mary, and others composed songs, prayers, and prophetic declarations that are preserved in Scripture. Luke's infancy and childhood narratives may well reflect traditions that originated with Mary herself. Mary Magdalene was the first person to see and proclaim the risen Savior.

Christians should not assume that women were absent from the process by which God gave his Word to his people.

Concluding thoughts

The book of Esther never tells us who wrote it, so we cannot be certain. My own view is that the final book likely incorporates eyewitness testimony from people such as Esther and Mordecai, while neither of them probably served as the final author. The detailed knowledge of court life certainly suggests access to people who were close to the events. It does not seem probable to me that Esther was the book’s final author, but neither should the possibility be dismissed out of hand.

As Christians, we do not need to choose between inspiration and the use of sources. Throughout Scripture, God often worked through human authors who used records, traditions, eyewitness accounts, and earlier writings. The doctrine of inspiration applies to the final text God gave his people.

Regarding historicity, I believe Esther records real events. While some scholars view it as historical fiction or a novella, the book displays extensive knowledge of Persian culture and repeatedly refers to official records. For these reasons, I find the traditional view that Esther is a historical account written from reliable sources to be the most convincing perspective.

Ultimately, the most important point is not identifying the precise human author but recognizing God's providence in preserving this account. The book's message remains the same: even when God seems absent, He is actively at work to preserve his people and accomplish his purposes.

Well Jenna, we hope that this gives you some helpful truth and opinions to chew on as you continue to consider the role of Ester—and many other women—in the authorship of the Bible. Be encouraged! God accomplishes His will through His people, every time.

John Beeson

Brie Barrier Wetherbee