Another possible reason why 1 Maccabees was never really accepted to be on par with the undisputed scriptural books is basically because to be blunt, it’s pretty much a piece of Hasmonean propaganda.
The dynasty the Maccabees founded, the Hasmoneans, appointed themselves kings and high priests of Judea. But you might say their claim for both titles is questionable traditionally: they were not of the line of King David (whereas a common expectation for a long time is that a Davidic descendant will regain the throne), and while they were priests they were not descendants of Zadok the high priest - in other words, they were not of the traditional high priestly line. That’s the reason why not every Jew liked them: the founders of the sect at Qumran, for instance, is believed to be a group of Zadokite priests who were disillusioned by the rise of the Maccabees/Hasmoneans into power and so withdrew themselves into the desert. Another group called the Hasidim (Hasideans), who had originally supported the Maccabees, later turned against them partly because they saw them (the Hasmoneans) as being too political and violent. (Note, the Hasideans are possibly one of the precursor groups to the Pharisees.) From the perspective of the haters, the Maccabees are really usurpers, gaining and holding onto power that were not theirs.
The author of 1 Maccabees basically tries to assert the right to rule of the Maccabees/Hasmoneans (despite their lack of the traditional necessary cred) by portraying them as the divinely-appointed saviors of Israel. It was their ‘official’ history, so to speak. (2 Maccabees is also propagandistic in the sense that one of its apparent aims is to convince Jews in Egypt to show support for the Hasmoneans by celebrating Hanukkah as a feast day – which originally is, of course, the commemoration of their rededication of the Temple, and with it, to attempt to de-legitimize the Zadokite priestly line, who had settled in Egypt and built a rival temple in Leontopolis.) And of course, those who do not agree with the Hasmoneans’ version of events would not like it. So it wouldn’t have been a universally-accepted work.
Of course, when the Hasmoneans were eventually replaced by the Herods and then by the Romans, 1 (and 2) Maccabees just became more redundant and problematic. I mean, who would want a work that celebrates a now-defunct dynasty whose very existence was kind of questionable? (Plus, in the case of 1 Maccabees at least, there was the whole bit about praising Romans, which wouldn’t really be welcome by the 1st century AD.)
And then, after the Romans finally destroyed Jerusalem and showed the Jews who was boss (so to speak) during the late 1st-early 2nd century afterwards, the whole original concept of Hanukkah itself - a celebration of a victorious guerrilla war for Jewish political autonomy - became questionable. This was a time when Jewish survivors were disassociating themselves from the Zealots and other freedom fighters who (in their view) started the mess, and to be frank, the Maccabees and their guerrilla tactics against the Greeks were kind of seen as encouraging Zealotry. And this is the reason why the modern Hanukkah focuses instead on the miracle of the oil and all that: the later Rabbis spiritualized, depoliticized Hanukkah to remove any traces of its militaristic origins. In this climate it’s hard to imagine Jews becoming more favorable with 1 and 2 Maccabees.
