In the debates over the 16th century doctrinal novelty, "Sola Scriptura", it is often claimed that the Bereans in Acts 17 are examples of sola Scripturists in the Bible since they..."searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." I submit, that not only does this argument not do justice to the context of the passage, but it doesn't consider what "these things" were that the Bereans were looking for in the Scriptures. Let's back up to verse 2 where Paul was at a synogogue of the Jews in Thessalonica: "Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead and saying, 'This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ'. And some were persuaded..." (Acts 17:2-4) So specifically Paul, in His preaching of Christ to the Jews, was demonstrating to the Jews from their Scriptures (the OT) that the Messiah indeed "had to suffer and rise again from the dead" no doubt pointing to Messianic prophecies. He then concluded that this specific person, Jesus of Nazareth, whom he was preaching fulfilled these specific prophecies--suffering and rising again. Paul had to do this as many Jews had the mistaken notion that Messiah was not to suffer and die, let alone rise again. Paul, thus, preached to these Jews the correct, authentic interpretation of Scriptures and how they were recently fulfilled in the historical figure of Jesus of Nazereth. It is these particular truths--that the Messiah must suffer and rise again--that Paul was using the (OT) Scriptures to point out in order to make his case that Jesus is the Christ. (So far, so good.) The result was that many were persuaded by Paul's preaching--his correct interpretation of Messianic Scriptures and that these were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. However not all bought Paul's interpretation: "But the Jews who were not persuaded, becoming envious..." (v.5) Now to verse 10 at Berea: "When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair minded than those in Thessalonica in that they receive the word[ie the apostolic preaching of Paul] with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out if these things were so. Therefore, many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men."(v.10-12) Note that the Bereans are called "more fair minded" primarily because they receive the apostolic word with all readiness. Secondarily, they looked into the (OT) Scriptures to verify to themselves that "these things"--Paul's specific arguments from the OT that the Messiah must suffer and rise--could be found in the Scripture. (So far, so good) The problem comes when the advocates of Sola Scritpura conclude by claiming that everything must be not only verifed by Scripture, but derived from Scripture with no help from the Church. This doesn't follow for several reasons: (1)It was the Apostolic Preaching--both in Acts 17 and in Philip's encounter with the eunuch--that provided the correct, authentic interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures (OT), particularly how the Messianic passages were to be interpreted. The Apostles learned this authentic interpretation from Christ Himself. Sadly, today Jewish apologists continue to ignore this Apostolic teaching and using "sola Scriptura" tactics conclude that Christ could not have been the Messiah. Similarly, error is likewise the fate anyone who seeks to interpret the Scriptures--OT or NT--outside the Tradition of the Apostles. (2) It took the Apostolic Preaching to identify, to the Jews, the specific historical Individual who fulfilled these Scriptural prophecies (rightly interpreted) and was, thus, "the Christ". (3) Although the OT foretold the fact of a New Covenant, the specific details and praxis of the New Covenant could not always be verified by or derived from the Old Testament as there was only vague hints of this in the OT. For example, despite having the OT scriptures there was a dispute in the Church over whether the Gentiles had to be circumcised or not to enter the covenant. Instead of searching in vain for a proof-text from the OT (other than mentioning that the Scriptures foretold the fact of the Gentiles coming into the covenant), the Apostles made their decision that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised because "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28). They could do with confidence this because Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them (collectively) into all the truth (John 16:13)...even if they couldn't find an OT proof text to answer all their questions. In addition to this, other examples include the details of baptism, the details of celebration of the Eucharist and church order and other teachings and praxis of the New Covenant which were handed down to the churches for two decades without any OT proof-text or before any NT epistle was written. Yet, the Christians obeyed because they discerned that the Apostolic Traditions were delivered to them by the Apostles from the Lord and were thus authoritative, the very commands of God. This is the same tradition which Paul commands Christians to keep whether delivered orally or by epistle (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). So to sum up, "sola Scriptura" can only be "demonstrated" from the case of the Bereans if one reads that doctrine back into the passage while ignoring the context and the historical realities of the early Church. Reading "sola Scriptura" into this passage clearly goes beyond what the Scriptures themselves are saying.