This guy’s idea that the Old Testament supports Sola Scriptura is all wet. Jewish law consisted of both written and oral parts, and depended heavily on teachers to interpret both parts for the people.
The name ‘written law’ was given to the Old Testament, and ‘oral law’ refers to all the teachings of the ‘sages’ consisting of comments on the text of the Bible. It has always been the teacher’s duty to explain and comment on the laws and ordinances until the people understood them thoroughly and knew them by heart. The descendants of Aaron, the priesthood, was commissioned to teach the Bible to the people. Although there are very few historical records to show us how this was accomplished from the days of Moses until the time of the Kingdom, it is apparent that the teaching ministry was unbroken during all those centuries.
Figurative interpretation of the Bible began in the days when the Great Assembly resolved to keep themselves distinct from the Samaritans, who adhered to the literal interpretation of the text. This study began to make progress from approximately the time of the Greek conquest of Judea, when the term ?Great Assembly? was changed to the Greek ?Sanhedrin.? In spread into every college where prominent teachers were charged with leading congregations in instruction of the Law, of ordinances relating to things clean and unclean, to rights of property, and to crime.
Reading the writings of the early Fathers of the Church is enough to convince me that Sola Scriptura would have been utter nonsense to them. Likewise the idea that we don’t need priests and especially bishops to help us properly understand the Faith.