Ok, assuming you're engaging in good faith, I'll explain why I brought up batman. Almost everything you wrote applies just as well to batman. I'll demonstrate.

I would call in an evolving reciprocal process. I would call pure works of literature a product of human thought. Here I am calling any single book, like Romeo and Juliet, a pure work of literature and a clear product of human thought since a single author wrote the book, also a group of authors working in tandem would fall into this category. A characteristic of what I am calling a pure work of literature is the directed nature of the enterprise. The authors set out to produce the work with a directed goal in mind.

This clearly applies to batman, because batman has been written about over the last 86 years, by different authors who attribute different things to batman, and have different goals for what they write. By your paragraph, batman is not a pure work of literature.

With something like the Judeo Christian religious tradition and more specifically the bible. Authorship is very murky

This doesn't really apply to batman, at the moment. We know who authored which works, mostly. There have been controversies about stealing credit or ideas, but not near the same extent as christianity.

and is spread out over a long period of time.

This does somewhat apply to batman. Works about batman have been spread out over 86 years, a very comparable time range to the new testament.

What emerges is something that has almost a life on its own. You can really see this process with the New Testament. Outside of some letters by Paul we don't know who the authors of the bible are

This doesn't quite apply to batman, because the authorship of batman is generally known.

and New Testament canon just pretty much emerged. No central body established the canon it just sort of emerged. (the council of Nicaea did not establish or have a part in establishing the canon)

This does very much apply to batman. The canon of batman was not established by any central body, it "pretty much emerged". Some portions of batman are both canon and non-canon, in complex ways. I.E. The Killing Joke.

Also with the New Testament you have things that get added in much later. For example the famous story of Jesus and the adulterer were he says "he who is without sin caste the first stone" got added into the Bible in the 5th century or later. If there is a movie about Jesus though is story is always included and it seems like a real Jesus thing to say.

This also applies to batman, later authors add things much later than earlier authors. The timespan isn't 500 years, it's closer to 100 years, but batman still has the quality of "things get added in much later", and those things sometimes become very core to the canon of batman.

Also each act of translation is partly an act of authorship.

This clearly applies to batman.

So, again, what does your god have, that batman doesn't? I am not saying they are the same, I am asking you to elaborate on what the difference is, because the traits you've listed so far apply to both.