I have not had time to look into the matter thoroughly. However a quick check of Stembergers “Introduction to Talmud and Midrash” the standard handbook of modern scholarship of rabbinic literature suggests that R. Zevieli has been rather selective in his citation of the scholarly literature on the topic of megilat Antiochus. Stemberger writes:
“Kaddari proposes to date the work for linguistic reasons between the second and fifth centuries, but most would assume the eighth or ninth century and regard the language as a literary imitation of targum Onqelos. (Similarly A. Kasher, along with other authors… considers… the text to be… redacted in polemical reaction against the karaites, who rejected this feast, this text could not have been composed before the second half of the eighth century…)”
In short, Kaddari is at best, a daas yachid on the issue, whose opinion has not been accepted. That does not make him wrong, of course.
As for other sources for the nes chanuka, there is only one, the famous “mai chanuka” baraita in masseches Shabbos. A similar text appears in many version of megilat taanit, but numerous scholars, most recently vered noam, in her edition of megillat taanit, argue that this is a latter interpolation from the [Talmud] Bavli and not an independent source. These scholars rely in part on the fact that the Or Zarua cites megillat taanit with out any reference to the nes pach hashemen.
Even if we accept that this baraita did in fact originate in Eretz Yisrael around the third century, (not a simple assumption given that neither the Yerushalmi nor any EY midrashim, even those as late a pesikta rabbati, seem to have been aware of this baraita) this still places it centuries after the time of the hasmonean revolt and much latter than many other accounts of origins of chanuka. Lets not evade the issue of the nes pach shemen, it’s a problem.