There are many acts of Divine judgement in works of mythology. Yet they are fictions. That a judgement is attributed to gods, or even to the True God, does not mean that the judgement actually occurred. In Book 1 of the Iliad, the god Apollo sends a devastating plague upon the Greeks encamped before Troy, in answer to the prayer of his priest Chryses, whose daughter Chryseis has been taken captive by the Greeks. The return of Chryseis to her father ends the plague and appeases the wrath of the god - & begins the animosity that is the main subject of the poem.
A judgement by a god or God, if it takes the form of an externally visible event, comes as an historical event: such as war, disease, famine, flood, plague or whatever. And there is no external means of distinguishing a Divine judgement from any other event. Anything in history can be regarded as a judgement - anything at all. The events referred to as judgements do not come with that label attached, so their significance - assuming that one regards them as having some significance - has to be guessed at.
Belief in the reality of God’s judgement does not require fictions to sustain it. I believe in it because it is repeatedly taught in the NT. And as Christ is the Universal Messiah-King, it makes perfect sense that He should judge all the nations on Earth; for judgement is a royal function. It is one of the ways in which kings show that they are legitimate & upright rulers who enjoy God’s favour.
To mythologise something, is to make it a myth. To recognise that a text relating a myth is doing so, is not making something non-mythical a myth, but recognising its genuinely mythical status. If there is mythical material in the Bible - and there is - then saying so is a proper recognition of the character of parts of the Bible. If the Bible contains mythical material, the reader should accept that, and go from that recognition of what the Bible in fact contains, to a more accurate understanding both of that material, and of what it doing in the Bible. If every part of Scripture has God for its Author, then God is saying something through the mythological material, as much as through anything else in the Bible. That something is mythological, in no way makes it meaningless or useless.
Greek mythology is full of specific names. Telemachus was the son of Odysseus, who was the son of Laertes, whose wife was Anticleia, who was the daughter of Autolycus, who was the son either of Daedalion or of the god Hermes, who was the son of Zeus. Cadmus, Pelops, Herakles, & many other characters, all have genealogies and geographical associations: Cadmus with Thebes, Pelops with Pisa in Elis, Herakles with Tiryns. Having a detailed genealogy, complete with geographic details, is (obviously) compatible with being a real historical person - but is equally compatible with being entirely fictitious.
The Gospels give us a Christ Whose knowledge is not infinite, but Who asks questions, and is capable of growing in knowledge. If He was “like us in all things - sin alone excepted”, that makes very good sense.
ISTM that, as He did not come to be an Answer Man on all matters of Scripture, its interpretation, and of Theology, it is unobjectionable to suggest that there were limits to His understanding of the Bible. I don’t think it is irreverent to say that. After all, no-one argues that because He was God Incarnate, He must therefore have been a greater composer than Mozart, a greater sculptor than Michelangelo, a greater polymath than Aristotle or Leonardo, a greater poet than Homer or Vergil, a greater athlete than Usain Bolt, a greater painter than Raphael or Rembrandt, and so on. IOW, people implicitly admit that He was in some respects subject to limitations.
That that He never undertook activity X, does not mean that others cannot undertake X, and do it supremely well. That He never wrote a history of the Ancient Near East, or drilled an oil-well, or taught Mathematics, does not make it impertinent for mere mortals to do so.
I think it was a consequence of the reality of the Incarnation, that there was a great deal about the OT He had no means of knowing, because nobody else could have known it, that has been learnt since then. If others could excel in activities which He never undertook, I don’t see why scholars of the Bible and its background cannot know more of it than He did.
If His knowledge was limited, so that men with greater material opportunities for learning than He had, came to know things He did not know, I think that is evidence of Divine Humility, not a flaw. Unless He knew absolutely everything that can ever be known, His knowledge must necessarily have been limited. The Gospels do not suggest that He was omniscient - they do emphasise His Teaching Authority, and by implication, His Wisdom. The Jesus of the Gospels is credibly human - not an infallible & omniscient superman with no human limitations. If He is admitted to have had other limitations before His Resurrection - why cannot His knowledge, even of the Bible, have had limitations ? It can even be argued that a Christ Who - before His Resurrection - is omniscient & infallible, is not the Christ through Whose human weakness God shows forth His Strength. Such a Christ is too Glorious, too early, & too unlike those whom He came to save.