That being said, I honestly (and I believe, rightly) believe that this is (1) the only method that one really *can* take, and (2) that it is indeed the best and most appropriate.

First, it’s the only method we can take as regenerate Christians, because we simply know it to be true, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. We can struggle to “pretend” that the Genesis account is not God’s “true” version, but we ultimately cannot get around the presupposition that it is the Word of God.

Secondly, I would say this is the (a) best and (b) most appropriate way of doing it to begin with. Starting with appropriateness; it is God’s revealed, inspired, and true word. Because we already *know* this (cf. point 1), it is therefore appropriate to employ this predisposition, and indeed, even explore it to its utmost and full capacities. And it is the best method, because we have the living Spirit of Christ indwelling in our hearts, transforming our minds to the mind of Christ. Christian scholars (and indeed, any Christian pursuit) should be at the pioneering forefront of their fields, blazing the trail for others to follow (and even if followers are secular, they must then change and compensate research to fit within their epistemological presuppositions).

This isn’t popular, but it is simple. It is actually only Enlightenment-thinking and 20th-century Modernity that expects us to “neutralize” our faith, and start from a “clean slate” with no bias. The true fact is (as revealed by postmodernity) that there is no neutrality: even secular, atheist scholars all have a bias, and objectivity is a myth of empiricism.

In light of that, Christians need to reclaim a bold, kerygmatic proclamation that the Bible is the genuine, true, revealed oracles of Yahweh, the mighty and living one true god and creator of the universe.

-ACR

However, as to your first question. I would think some might object to the presuppositional starting point that Niehaus takes–assuming that the biblical material is “truth.” Some would see this as fideistic and rather arbitrary. In other words, it would be the standard critique that it is a form of hubris to claim that one knows truth in the face of such diversity of data and opinions. Then, they might claim that the ANE material that the bible supposedly draws on is fictional (some such as Brichto claim that it was never intended to be taken literally anyway) and therefore the biblical material is fictional as well. Then, I would think they would try to address whether the biblical writers knowingly or unknowingly adopted fictional material. I think that representatives from both non-believing and “evangelical” camps (possibly Goldingay, Enns, Kent Sparks…) alike would be comfortable with some forms of this approach.

As to Beale’s proposal, I definitely agree that there is more than one way in which biblical and extra-biblical material can relate to one another. I would add that I don’t see the three approaches that Niehaus outlines as mutually exclusive, but rather, they could be a mixture or located along a spectrum. For instance, the biblical account of the flood could point to all three of these theories at the same time: the biblical account is the true retelling of a story that is located in near universal consciousness of the ancient world but the biblical account derives some of its language and structure from ANE accounts both to facilitate communication but also as a foil to interact/correct other ideas.

The strongest argument against it is God does not exist.

Other options from a biblical worldview: God doesn’t need help from the pagan culture and there is not a connection between the literary structure of Scripture and that of the pagan culture. Niehaus’ argument makes more sense than this, for Scripture does not take space to explain the stipulations and regulations of the covenants and laws. It just lays them out, seeming to assume a prior knowledge of the literary and legal forms being used.