Rabbi Edward Feld's assertion that higher biblical criticism undermines Jewish law by destabilizing revelation demands careful theological examination. Contrary to Feld's position, the relationship between revelation, biblical text, and halakhah proves far more nuanced than direct causation. Through analysis of traditional Jewish sources—including Talmudic references and Maimonides' works—alongside Kantian epistemological frameworks, alternative interpretive models emerge that preserve halakhic authority while acknowledging modern biblical scholarship. Revelation exists as a sui generis faith assertion beyond empirical verification, while the Bible-halakhah relationship functions associatively rather than derivationally. Building upon Rabbi Zechariah Frankel's Historical School approach and Professor Heschel's scholarship, accepting diverse biblical origins while maintaining subsequent textual unity enables traditionalist rather than fundamentalist interpretation. This analysis demonstrates that halakhic coherence remains intact despite higher critical approaches, revealing Feld's position as grounded in subjective criteria rather than theological necessity. The halakhic system thus retains its fundamental integrity as a viable alternative to contemporary subjectivism within Conservative Judaism.