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Kinda goes without saying, doesn't it, if I repeal prohibition, extending the law after it's repealed is sort of moronic.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.
It is quite simple, really.
History is fine. That is good. Necessary, even.
And you agree that the High Priests of the Temple were the legitimate leaders of the Lord's only church before Jesus.
We are on the same page.
The next step is to ask you when the Septuagint was translated, by whom, and under whose authority.
And the answer to that is: in the third century BC, by scribes specifically sent by the High Priest of the Temple of Jerusalem to the Ptolemy's in Alexandria, so that the Jewish Scriptures would be a part of the collected knowledge there.
The Septuagint, designated by the High Priest of the Lord's Only Temple, contains 1 and 2 Maccabbees, among other books.
That was the Jewish Canon in the 3rd and the 2nd and the 1st Century BC, and in the 1st Century AD, at the time of Jesus.
The current Hebrew Canon was a creation of the rabbis in 90-100 AD, from the so-called Council of Jamnia. The rabbis were Jewish leaders, yes, but they were NOT the High Priests of the Temple. For the Temple had been destroyed in 69 AD. When the Temple was destroyed, the Hebrew Canon that became the Massoretic Text did not exist. Rather, the Septuagint Canon, designated by the High Priests, existed.
So, the High Priests, whom you have designated as the legitimate leaders of the Lord's Temple, selected the Septuagint Canon and had it translated for the Ptolemy's as the repository of Judaism. Thus the legitimate priests.
And thus the Scriptures of Jesus' day.
The rabbis, not Priests, without a Temple, and without authority, reduced the canon to eliminate the later works, which they considered to be Greek, and which, besides, tend to support the Christian message (hence the Christian's fondness for citing them).
You have argued that nobody has the authority to CHANGE God's oracle, the Scripture. And you are absolutely right.
The Scriptures of the Old Testament are indeed exactly what God's legitimate priests of his legitimate Temple said they were when they sent their scribes to translate the Septuagint. And 1 and 2 Maccabees were in that canon.
The Hebrew Canon that cut those books out was an amendment of the oracle of God, and abridgment. You have asserted that those books are an ADDITION to the canon. You are in error. Those books were considered canonical by the priests of the Temple.
Rabbis working a generation after the destruction of the Temple were neither priests nor any longer the legitimate leaders of the one true Church of God.
That Church was the Christian Church, and the Christian Church has always used the Septuagint Canon, ever since Jesus' days. The Septuagint Canon established by the High Priest of God's Only Temple in the 3rd Century BC.
The Christians did not dispute this canon for 16th Centuries.
Then Martin Luther abridged the canon that God's High Priests ordained, and substituted the illegitimate abridged canon of the rabbis-without-a-Temple.
You have asserted that there is no authority to change the oracle, which is Scripture.
And you're right.
Why, then, you insist on using an abridged version of the oracle is a mystery. There certainly is no authority for it. Unless you would like to asser that rabbis who were not High Priests of the Temple, as there were neither such priests nor any Temple any more, retained the authority to reverse the decisions of the High Priests of the One True Temple of four centuries prior.
There being no way around the real history of the matter, I look forward to the creative writing exercise which I am sure will be forthcoming in which a new history will be proposed to replace the inconvenient real one.