There is actually no difference between Tradition 1 and the Reformers, that’s the point Oberman was making. They wanted to return to this older way of seeing special revelation, and to the less-corrupted way of relating tradition to scripture. Namely, scripture is the only source of revelation, and there is nothing outside of it. The only role for tradition is that it serves scripture and helps interpret it. It is not independent of scripture, or have separate contents of its own. Something like this was found as late as Aquinas. The key point is, the hermeneutic those people use was chosen or made by them. “I decide how I’ll interpret scripture, or what it means to me.” This is contrasted with: “Someone else will tell me what scripture means” which is the traditional view. It can be seen as taught among other places in the story of Peter and the eunuch. At the Reformation, all magisterial Reformers had rejected private interpretation. There is a Lutheran tract specifically against private interpretation from the 1560s, if I remember correctly. Today of course private interpretation is seen as a sacred Protestant commitment, but that’s because the evangelicals and anabaptists (ie. all the radical protestants), have taken over.