I really do not wish to repeat any of the general discussions about Zohar authorship in any of the questions that discuss that. What I would like to know is the following very specific point:
Given that there are some opinions who hold that the Zohar was not written by the Rashbi, and is not a "lost Tannaic work", but is actually written down by a medieval author, yet these opinions also don't throw the Zohar in the bin, but accept it as a valid holy Torah work, how do they get around the fact that this author wrote the Zohar in what appears to be a deceptive way?
To phrase it differently, how is it acceptable that someone in the middle ages will write, without disclaimer or qualification "Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai said the following...", when they never met Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, and are simply attributing their own words to him? Is this not deceptive, among other halachic issues (arrogant, disrespectful of Chazal etc.)? Is deception a good basis for a holy work, especially one that purports to teach the holiest secrets of the Torah?
I have a friend who holds of the above opinion and I asked him the same question and he said that it's not deceptive, but rather poetic. The medieval scholar was teaching a lesson that they believe is "in the school of" who they are quoting, i.e. it is their attempt at continuing the themes and teachings of the personality they are "quoting".
Is this a done thing?
EDIT: It is, it's called pseudepigraphal. Are there any leads to positions that hold the Zohar and related works are examples of pseudepigrapha?