It might disprove your version of Sola Scriptura. It does nothing to disprove what Protestants believe as Sola Scriptura. But beating up on men made of straw is a time-honored tradition both on FreeRepublic and in life in general.
Scriptural Basis for Oral Tradition
Oral Tradition is the means by which the early church communicated their teachings. BUT, it is not "Tradition" as Catholics talk of tradition. Oral tradition is only done in an oral society. Oral tradition cannot be accomplished in a written society.
This is completely inaccurate. Do you know anything about English history? Everything from King Alfred forward disproves your supposition.
Cecil Sharp was still collecting independent oral tradition in England and Scotland in the 1920s. Shoot, the authors of this book were still collecting it in the 1980s. And John Jacob Niles was collecting oral tradition in the U.S. Southern mountains in the 30s and 40s, as was Richard Chase.
Sorry, you're just plain wrong here.
Matthew 2: 23: And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Please find that in the Old Testament for me since it appears in Matthew. You will soon see that it is not in Scripture but was passed down orally.
You might also indicate where Matthew 23: 1-3 appears in the Old Testament regarding Moses' seat.
I think you'll find that both these passages are not found in Scripture, and are examples of "Oral Tradition" (not written). This is why "sola scriptura" cannot suffice.
See Dave Armstrong, a Catholic apologist, for a great many more examples.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM
This is a novel assertion. Can you share your evidence and reasoning in support of it?