Is the Resh Lakish Intercalation Story Fictional?

In the daf Yomi from Sunday, Sanhedrin 26a, we had the story in which Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish wished to join to Sages to observe the intercalation of a month into the year. It begins:

רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר זַרְנוֹקֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק הֲווֹ קָאָזְלִי לְעַבֵּר שָׁנָה בְּעַסְיָא. פְּגַע בְּהוּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אִיטַּפַּל בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ. אָמַר: אֵיזִיל אִיחְזֵי הֵיכִי עָבְדִי עוֹבָדָא.

§ The Gemara recounts an incident connected tangentially to the discussion concerning the Sabbatical Year: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Zarnokei and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak were going to intercalate the year in Asya, as circumstances did not enable them to perform the intercalation of the year in Eretz Yisrael. Reish Lakish met them and joined with them. He said: I will go see how they do the deed, i.e., how the intercalation is performed practically.

On the way, they see two people seemingly violating Sheviit and defend them against Reish Lakish condemnation. Reish Lakish still argues. When it comes time to ascend the ladder, they pull it up behind them so he cannot ascend. He goes back to Rabbi Yochanan and criticizes them and their validity to intercalate the year, if they are such people suspect on Sheviit. Later, they kvetch to Rabbi Yochanan, but he sides with Reish Lakish.

Someone told that he’d heard a shiur from Rabbi Benny Lau in which he suggested that the story was a farce, and was fictional, intended to teach a particular lesson. After all, there are problems with the story (some which the fellow related, some which I’ll supplement):

1. How could they intercalate in Asia Minor rather than in the Land of Israel? (See Tosafot who pose this question and propose an answer.)

2. How could they intercalate during Shemitta year, as it clearly is from the people they encounter? (See same Tosafot who pose this question and propose a rather weak answer, that they were only performing the calculations.)

3. The names of these two Sages don’t appear elsewhere.

My reaction was — perhaps. But I not convinced that this must be so. There are answers I find acceptable and perhaps preferable to saying the whole story obviously doesn’t make sense, so is a parody or a coded message.

Namely:

1. On other occasions, they intercalated outside the land of Israel when it was a time of Shmad. Perhaps they were not able to otherwise intercalate.

2. Yes, not intercalating during Shemitta seems like an inviolable rule, vs. the year after Shemitta which seems like a matter of dispute. (See Sanhedrin 12.) The reason is that you’re thereby extending the time that grain is prohibited because of chadash. But this might also be a rule of thumb for normal years, and if they had to intercalate in Asia Minor, maybe the situation necessitated it.

3. Yes, we don’t see Rabbi Chiyya bar Zarnoki elsewhere. That does not mean that it is a made up name. There’s the famous story — probably apocryphal and doesn’t really work out — that one rabbi was able to detect the fictionalized Yerushalmi on Kodshim because there were no unique names that never appeared in any other tractate, whereas in general, each tractate did have a unique name of a Sage who didn’t appear elsewhere.
   
   Further, who says that a Sage needs to appear multiple times, saying other halachot. There may have been many Sages studying in different academies (and some gemaras talk about many students in given academies) that didn’t say something that is cited, something novel. Just as, lemashal, there were many neviim besides those who wrote prophetic books, but they didn’t say things necessary ledorot. I don’t think the approximately 3000 Talmudic Sages we know of must be a comprehensive list.
   
   Further, different Sages have different strengths and weaknesses. Someone might get semicha for a subset of yoreh, yadin, and yatir bechorot. Could someone who just knew the laws of blemishes in animals well have just gotten yatir bechorot semicha? That seems logical. Similarly, some Sages display strength in midrash aggada, others in midrash halacha, others in halacha, others in comprehensive knowledge of braytot, and others in analysis.
   
   So, perhaps Rabbi Chiyya bar Zarnoki’s strength was in the calendar, calculation, and understanding physical signs of the season. If so, he wouldn’t weight in on other matters.
   
   In terms of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, I would not say with absolute certainty that he does not appear elsewhere. After all, all over the place, we have Rabbi Yochanan — one of the participants in the story — saying a statement mishum / in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak.
   
   Now, I’ve discussed this often in the past, that there’s a problem posed regarding this. (For instance, in this article on Mishum as Citation Without Endorsement.) Mishum is generally understood (by others) to indicate a student / teacher relationship, perhaps even a rebbe muvhak. Yet, in this story, Rabbi Yochanan follows Reish Lakish’s lead and is rude to the pair of Sages. Not only does he not defend Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak when Reish Lakish attacks, but he even tells them that they are lucky that he didn’t call them what they deserved, shepherds of sheep (who were wicked instead of merely ignorant). How could Rabbi Yochanan be so rude to his teacher?
   
   I’ve seen and suggested a few answers. For instance, (a) that there must have been two Sages by the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak, and we are dealing with the younger one here. OK, if so, then there really aren’t other instances of this particular Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak II saying anything. Or maybe the fact that the rudeness doesn’t make sense is an indication that it is fiction.
   
   (b) is that we can find girsaot where it is Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak who is Rabbi Yochanan’s teacher. Also, there are many instances where he says something mishum Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, and even in shorthand as Rabbi Shimon ben Yo’ , meaning that this is a shorthand that could have been improperly expanded.
   
   (c) But what I really argued is that mishum just is the citation form once you get early enough in the Amoraim and then Tannaim; and also, relatedly, that it often means citation without endorsement, without putting forth the idea on your own. So perhaps Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak was early enough, and brought plenty of ideas that Rabbi Yochanan found worthy of quoting, which he didn’t innovate himself. But Rabbi Yochanan was often imperious with others of his own generation and even a bit earlier, so it does not seem so strange for him to side with Reish Lakish and condemn this Sage as part of a pair.