The concept of sola scriptura dates far later than the first centuries of Christianity (leave alone the foundations of Pharisee-ism circa 4th century BC
There is a difference between the Oral Law and the "doctrines of men" which the Pharisees had been creating. They are not the same thing. The Traditions of the Elders are man-made laws regarded by the scribes and Pharisees as having the same legal binding force as that of the Written and Oral Law.
This is not the case in Christianity. No one believes that (let's take Church Law for example) Church Law is on par with or equal to the initial deposit of faith, which is given to us through written medium (the Scripture) and oral and demonstration (the Apostolic Tradition).
Oh sure there is.
They are not the same thing. The Traditions of the Elders are man-made laws regarded by the scribes and Pharisees as having the same legal binding force as that of the Written and Oral Law.
Now you are merely making Protestant arguments against Jewish oral and rabbinic law, just as you make Jewish arguments against Protestant "faith alone" beliefs.
There are two kinds of oral law. The first is from G-d on Mt. Sinai that was not written down in the Written Torah (at least on the surface). This is the same as your "apostolic tradition." The second is rabbinic law. The authority of the Halakhic Sages is commanded by Torah (Deuteronomy 17:11 and other places). And there is a difference between laws that are directly from G-d and those enacted by the Sages. It is so important that the Talmud is full of arguments as to whether such-and-such a law is from Sinai (Midde'Orayta') or from the Sages (Midderabbanan). These arguments exist because the issue is IMPORTANT--eg, the punishments for violating Rabbinic law are not the same as for those violating Torah Law. You don't understand this because your dogma requires you to de-legitimize Jewish oral law while legitimizing Catholic oral law.
And yet, again, the commandment to obey the Sages is in the Written Torah itself.