The texts for Scripture have been preserved and are available for perusal to verify accuracy.
*Oral tradition* does not have that.
So your attempt to use that argument against Scripture falls apart.
Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a pharisee. Whatever the Jews of those days considered Scripture is going to be what he was referring to.
None of the original texts are preserved.
" So your attempt to use that argument against Scripture falls apart."
I am not making an argument 'against Scripture'. I am making an argument FOR Scripture. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
I am arguing that Scripture is authoritative because it was verified by the practice of the Church, as it was handed down to us. I.e. Tradition, which means "that which is handed down."
A most obvious example: the Gospels. All four of them are anonymous as far as the text is concerned. None of them are signed or self-attested as to authorship. How do we know their authorship? Tradition. Without this authorship, would these books have been accepted into the canon? No. Therefore they were accepted into the canon on the authority of Tradition, which said that these books were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
"Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a pharisee. Whatever the Jews of those days considered Scripture is going to be what he was referring to." But that can't be "all" he was referring to, because there were at least 34 books written in Greek which the Jews (at least as of ~100 AD) did not accept, including, of course, the Gospels.