Because Higher Criticism approaches the biblical manuscripts from a more hypothetical perspective, its
greatest challenge is reconciling the role of supernatural events in biblical history.

Based on how critics approach supernatural events, which reveals their presuppositions, higher criticism is
divided into two camps:

Constructive Criticism accepts the possibility of supernatural inspiration of the Bible.

Destructive Criticism takes a human rationalistic approach and views the Bible with a bias against supernatural influences.

Destructive critics tend to use Higher Criticism as a method to speculate and historically reconstruct the Bible
as a work of human fiction. Often based on skeptical assumptions, their conclusions are controversial. In many cases, the controversy is focused on the subjective method of analysis, or it fails to acknowledge the method’s limitations, or in some cases, fails to be academically accountable.

If Higher Criticism is so questionable and controversial, is it necessary to consider these methods as
viable means to study the Bible?