[[That seems so far-fetched and unnecessary to whatever Jesus was illustrating that I cannot presently manage enough suspension of disbelief to entertain it. ]]
Even when the events spoken of are contrary to biblical truths? You must suspend belief In order to explain a soul has lips and a tongue in need of relief, that souls in hell are able to talk to souls In heaven, that Abraham would call a gentile in hell son, that a gentile soul in hell would call Abraham father, you would have to suspend belief In order to believe a man in torments would be able to speak at all
[[I would disagree with you that the passage is based on a superstitious Babylonian myth, ]]
I would encourage you to look into this passage more thoroughly- The Pharisees DID teach the myth of abrahams’ bosom - this isn’t in dispute- They taught that there was a gulf that could be crossed,
Don’t get the part about a “gentile in hell” — while Jesus didn’t specify what people the miser belonged to, His usual context was that of Jewish people.
To allude to a myth but change elements of it could be to acknowledge that the myth was partly accurate but not wholly. Some elements could also take on symbolic meanings, as both water and tongue might. I am not terribly bothered by a failure of a story or even parable to be woodenly literal.