Let's return to Maccabbees for a moment and stipulate to some history.
Was the Jerusalem Temple the one true temple of God before the advent of Jesus? And were the High Priests of the Temple the authorities of God's Church before Jesus?
Yes or no?
History is fine. And yes that is the case. But, I'm pretty sure I know where you intend to go, so..
A few points.. 1) The Old testament is the old covenant - it is not a covenant for us. If it isn't for us, how do you presume to make the leap that it is. It is instructive; but, not binding on us.
2) The new covenant is predicted by the old and fulfills the old. The new covenant replaces the old. It is the new contract between man and God. If the old covenant isn't for us and the new covenant is, what good does it do to add to the old one?
3) The new covenant was sealed by Christ in the first century and put into effect. It is the covenant for Jew and Gentile alike. So anything that is legitimate to the old covenant had to be in before Christ sealed the new.
Kinda goes without saying, doesn't it, if I repeal prohibition, extending the law after it's repealed is sort of moronic. Ok, we'll drop the sortof.
Add to that, again, the fact that the oracles of God were entrusted to the house of isreal and the canon of the Old covenant is restricted by the sealing of the new. If Macabees was added after the sealing of the new covenant, the which it was, then where does that leave you - nowhere with no authority.
I've blown them out of the water in less than ten minutes and haven't even gotten to their content yet - which many think even more damning. Where, then, does that leave us.
On the basis of the above I find no reason to include them, much less argue about excluding them - we haven't established that they belong, contextually or otherwise. The opposite seems to be true. And once we review their content, that is rather well solidified.
So, while I'm willing to hear your arguments, which I've likely heard before. You've a lot to overcome in trying to sell it.