> Why is it unlikely that the narrator had a record of the events?
Because there is no indication that written records were kept, or that any
but
a very few individuals were present.
> Of course, the Jewish religious leaders who opposed Jesus hardly needed an
> explicit statement in their law to condemn Jesus, after all, what law did
> they have to justify their intention of killing Lazarus? (John 12:10)
At this point, I believe, we are going beyond the purview of this list. I
will
point out gain that you are assuming that biblical accounts can be treated
as
if they are the functional equivalent of modern histories.
> Also, it is not at all far-fetched to think that a claim to the office of
> Messiah, by a man whom they perceived to be demonized, would be considered
> blasphemous.
Given first-century Jewish concepts of Messiahship, it is rather far-fetched.
It would not be blasphemous to claim that office, if indeed Jesus did so.
And
if it were blasphemous, then Jesus could have been punished under Jewish law,
while Jesus suffered a Roman execution for a violation of Roman law. There
were others who claimed to be Messiahs in the first century. An analogy - if
someone today were to claim to be the Pope, would that be blasphemy?