Luke 16.39-31 mentions ‘Lazarus’ in a parable. This is discussed in a new article by Reuben Bredenhof (NTS, 2020):

The unique name Lazarus in Luke 16.19-31 has prompted interpreters to posit an association with the Lazarus raised from the dead by Jesus in John 11, a proposal that has a long pedigree (Origen, Fr. Jo. 77). It is certainly remarkable that Lazarus is the only named character in any Synoptic parable, and that Lazarus is the only named recipient of a miracle in John’s Gospel. Besides proper names, similarities of content include the death of both characters, the possibility – and in John 11, the reality – of their return to life, and also a context of antagonism towards Jesus in both narratives. However, the relationship between the Lukan and Johannine pericopae remains impossible to delineate, and even the direction of influence has been debated. Some posit that the story of Lazarus’ resurrection was contrived by John, developed out of the already-extant parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man [K. Pearce, ‘The Lucan Origins of the Raising of Lazarus’, ExpTim 96 (1984-5) 359-61; cf. U. Busse, who argues that John’s audience was intended to read his story with the Lukan parable in mind (‘Johannes und Lukas: Die Lazarusperikope, Frucht eines Kommunikationsprozesses’, John and the Synoptics (ed. A. Denaux; BETL 101; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992) 281-306)]. An alternative suggestion is that Jesus tells the Luke 16 parable shortly after raising his friend Lazarus from the dead when there was intensified opposition from the Jewish leadership (John 11.45-54; 12.9-10). Attractive as a connection between this Lukan parable and the Johannine miracle story may be, any proposal is hampered by a lack of evidence and must remain hypothetical.

1. Did the person exist? The person of Lazarus is very unlikely to be historical. K. Grobel in ‘…Whose Name was Neves’ (New Testament Studies, Volume 10 No 03, April 1964, pp 373 – 382) offers a strong argument that the gospel periscope of Lazarus is a derivation of a previously existing Egyptian tale about the the reversal in fortune of an virtuous poor man and an evil rich man after their burials. R. Hock in ‘Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31’ (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 106, No. 3, September 1987, pp. 447-463) delves deeper, concluding that the Egyptian source is credible, but noting that there are plausible arguments for other sources such as independent Jewish legend circulating at the time but, regardless of the muse, “It should now be clear that a variety of rhetorical, literary, and philosophical sources from the Greco-Roman world provided detailed and insightful clues” into creation and contemporaneous understanding of the narrative.