Sola scriptura is a fallacy from a mind that made up a lot of new formulas ignoring fundamental theological aspects.
The tradition came first.
If you did believed scriptures came first, you would have never accepted the removal of 7 books, from the original 73 to 66 of the protestant imposters.
How do you explain their removal without attacking the scriptures themselves?
We received the OT from the church under age. The "aprocrypha" were never considered the Word of God, even if helpful or historical (or not). See Kline, [The Structure of Biblical Authority](https://amzn.to/3rz8MMj). Either way, authority of an inspired text is not bestowed (per Rome) but recognized and acknowledged (as per the Reformers). God's word speaks for itself.
In our circles, this is reffered to as [the self-attestation of scripture](https://modernreformation.org/resource-library/articles/the-self-attestation-of-scripture/) (q.v.).
Some books, even of the 66, are more important than others.
