"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
This is a classical example of parrellism in Hebrew poetry. Yahweh, (The LORD or Jehovah), in the first part relates to God's immanence or our ability to comprehend God through nature. Qedoshim ,(The Holies or the Holy One), relates to God's transcendence or the absolute otherness of God.
I think the arguement that follows is that to even approach the Qedoshim side of God requires Faith. Also, it appears to me that evidentialism and presuppositionalism are not mutually exclusive. As you noted in a previous post for a tautology to be correct it must be proven outside the system. So, if we use an evidentialist approach to prove the validity of the Bible we are allowed within the tautology.
The Apostolic Tradition, as I have been trying to contend, is the presuppositional framework with which we begin our interpretation of scripture. As William DiPuccio states:
In this instance, the early Fathers seem to have fully grasped the notion that our understanding of Christianity and the Bible is conditioned by a priori ideas and commitments which originate in the community and culture. Hence, they made no pretensions about epistemological neutrality or detached objectivity. For them the tradition of the church constituted the only legitimate sphere of Biblical interpretation.
But, how then can we demonstrate that the church's oral tradition is true over/against the oral tradition of the gnostics? Here we must turn to that unpopular Romish concept that burns in the ears of so many Protestants: Apostolic succession. Setting aside later alterations and/or distortions of this idea, the original concept of apostolic succession (which included deacons or presbyters as well as bishops) was not so much a succession of ordination, as a succession of living faith and truth as these are embodied in the Scriptures and the ancient Rule of Faith.[12]
And later on he notes:
So the authority and veracity of the Rule was not established by philosophical debate over first principles, but by the continuity of history. Hence, only a historical argument can break the deadlock over first principles. Like us, the early church operated in a society of philosophical pluralism. While apologists such as Quadratus, Aristides, Justin, and Athenagoras, successfully engaged pagan philosophers on their own ground, objectively speaking, the first principles of Christian faith, like the resurrection itself, rest finally upon the faithfulness and authority of the apostolic witness.
So the question becomes one of tautology and Dipuccio answers it:
But upon first consideration, the reasoning of the Fathers seems to be circular since they proved the Scriptures from the Rule and proved the Rule by appealing to Scripture. This tautology was broken in two ways: First, as already mentioned, unlike the NT Scriptures, the Rule is established and transmitted solely by apostolic succession and oral tradition. So, though the Rule may be identical in content to the Bible, it was handed down orally by historical succession. It is the viva vox the living voice of what the Scriptures are in writing. Or, as Yves Congar has pointed out, the same tradition is manifested in two different forms. Second, the Rule marks only the essential doctrines of Scripture and was never intended to comprehend its entire contents. As already mentioned, the Rule functioned in a way similar to Luther's Christological principle by ordering and unfolding the entire corpus of faith.[17]
Hermeneutics, Exegesis, and the Rule of Faith: An Ancient Key to a Modern Question
Thus, I would contend, that presuppostionalism is a necessary formulation within the Christian church but not mutually exclusive from evidentialism.