You're "surprised" we haven't dug deeper? You and I have had this discussion several times over the years and you have been shown that all these "rich" typologies and their supposed "importance" is not at all either. Saying there are "similarities" and that the verse is directly quoted are two different things. With rare exception, every one of those cross references given can be shown in the inspired books of the Old Testament. For a few, even, the supposed comparison is completely bogus so I think it casts all of them in a dim light as attempts to trick people into thinking that Jesus and the Apostles/writers of the New Testament were citing these books as from Almighty God. Here are a few examples a quick search revealed:
Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.
2 Macc. 13:4 says: "But the King of kings stirred up the mind of Antiochus against the sinner, and upon Lysias suggesting that he was the cause of all the evils, he commanded (as the custom is with them) that he should be apprehended and put to death in the same place.
The title King of Kings is NOT taken from Maccabees, but was of Nebuchadnezzar and first used in Daniel 2:37 and Ezekial 26:7 "Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.". The title is also used of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:12, "Artaxerxes king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time." We find that in the New Testament, the name is applied to who is the TRUE King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ: "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen." (I Timothy 6:15,16) as well as the verses in Revelation 17:14 and 19:16. The title, Lord of Lords, is of course, applied to Almighty God in Deuteronomy 10:17, "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" and Psalm 136:3, "O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever."
Rev. 19:1 - the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.
Except Tobit 13:18 doesn't say that, "Blessed are all they that love thee, and that rejoice in thy peace." In verse 22, though, we find the word alleluia, "All its streets shall be paved with white and clean stones: and Alleluia shall be sung in its streets.". In Revelation 21:21, however, we learn that the streets of the New Jerusalem are NOT paved with "white and clean stones" like Tobit says, but, "And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass."
I'm not going to spend all night cross checking every one of these. The fact that there are multiple errors in these "Apocryphal" books proves that they could NOT be from the "breath" of God (inspired) because He doesn't make mistakes or contradict Himself. For a list of all the references in the New Testament that are found in the Old Testament, the following link is a good one http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm. For those interested in learning about the errors in these Apocryphal books, this is also a good source http://www.jashow.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0704W2.htm.
I'm not giving this response to be cantankerous or to be hurtful, I just don't like it when the Word of God is questioned and its inerrant and supernatural origin is confused with extraneous works that do not have the qualities believers can rely upon. As many of the early church fathers attested, some of these books can be interesting, helpful and good to read, but they are NOT to be used to develop doctrine upon. That is why we have those books that DO come from God and which were approved of by God in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Have a good night.
bb-""The title King of Kings is NOT taken from Maccabees""
Yes it is.
2 Macc. 13:4.... But the King of kings stirred up the mind of Antiochus against the sinner, and upon Lysias suggesting that he was the cause of all the evils, he commanded (as the custom is with them) that he should be apprehended and put to death in the same place.
...and Rev-17;14
These shall fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because he is Lord of lords, and King of kings, and they that are with him are called, and elect, and faithful.
bb-""Except Tobit 13:18 doesn't say that"",
Yes it does as you read on through verses 13 through 23
From Tobit 13;18-23
Blessed are all they that love thee, and that rejoice in thy peace. [19] My soul, bless thou the Lord, because the Lord our God hath delivered Jerusalem his city from all her troubles. [20] Happy shall I be if there shall remain of my seed, to see the glory of Jerusalem.
[21] The gates of Jerusalem shall be built of sapphire, and of emerald, and all the walls thereof round about of precious stones. [22] All its streets shall be paved with white and clean stones: and Alleluia shall be sung in its streets. [23] Blessed be the Lord, who hath exalted it, and may he reign over it for ever and ever, Amen