AnonyMous....Many years ago I did some research on the claim of direct reuse of story elements from Euripides and other famed playwrights. I came to the slightly more nuanced conclusion that rather than conscious 'copying' it was more of a case of drawing from a milieu of imagery and idiom for the storyline. Your illustrating that with popular superhero fiction is a pretty good parallel. There is just no way to honestly overlook the emulation of Homer, Euripides or Ovid in the Luke/Acts narrative for example, but at the same time I found the Jewish writer Artapanus had similarly drawn from this literary body of work for his stories about a superhuman/divine Moses hundreds of years earlier. The miraculous prison escape scene for example:
"The king of the Egyptians learned of Moses' presence, summoned him and asked for what purpose he had come. He responded that the master of the universe had ordered him to release the Jews. When the king learned of this, he confined him in prison. But when night came, all the doors of the prison opened of themselves and some of the guards died, while others were relaxed by sleep and their weapons were broken." (On the Jews, fragment three).
The point being, the NT was not unique in drawing motif and idiom from the Greco-Roman literary world.
The 'letters' of Paul represent a complicated case of likely fragmentary material having come through at least 2 phases of expansion and redaction. Dating the material then gets very subjective. The usual model, that 'Paul's' version of his conversion (and escape through a window etc.) predates the Acts version, might be correct but then again, a number of well-respected scholars have reversed that order and suggest the differences reflect community recensions of inherited traditions rather than a conscious refutation/rewrite. (I'm inclined to describe it, regardless direction of influence, as a more direct revision because of inclusion of the otherwise irrelevant detail in both Acts and 2Cor. of the use of a "basket") That dates much of the finished 'authentic' Paulines to the 180s or so. That is a minority view but a scholarly one. The more we dig the less confident we are that anything reflects an historical core that we crave for reconstructions of Christian origins.