Scripture AND tradition? Can they both be right?

Luther made way too much of sola scriptura -- although at the time it was about the only way to reform Christianity. Tradition allows people to refine and adjust their religion. Ironic, given that so many of us think traditions are inflexible. But that's how it works.

Most Christians that talk up “sola scripture” don’t even realize that much of what they think is Christian is based on tradition, not sola scriptura.

Yeshua was an observant Jew, and as such he participated in the traditions of Second Temple Judaism, specifically those of the school of Hillel. For those actually familiar with Jewish tradition, we hear it coming out of Yeshua's very mouth. More to the point, Yeshua teaches his follows to do and observe ALL that the Pharisees teach. Matthew 23:1-3

Neither scripture nor tradition were intended to be set in stone. Scripture cannot rightly be set apart from Tradition, for scripture is part of Trafition. I guess I don’t see a problem with both being “right,” since neither are absolutes.

Imagine you get a Jew, a Samaritan, a Protestant, and either a Catholic or an Orthodox round the table. You show them four books and ask "Is this scriptural?"

Genesis is accepted by all four.
Isaiah is accepted by three of them, but rejected by the Samaritan.
Acts of the Apostles is accepted only by the two Christians.
Wisdom is accepted only by the Catholic or Orthodox Christian.

And the moral of this is that it's tradition which defines scripture. The only book that comes with the label "word of God" is the Quran, and none of our four are going to accept that!