Schiffman's Explanation of the Pesher Tradition in Judaism (and its Relationship with the Aramaic Word P-T-R)

From the Center for Online Judaic Studies. I am trying to explain to my readers how what is identified as the 'Gospel of Peter' might well have been a poor translation of an original text written by Basilides called 'the Gospel of the Interpretation' or the Gospel Pesher in Aramaic which was used alongside the Gospel of Mark in the Alexandrian community of Clement's day. The Gospel Pesher was used presumably by the uninitiated. Schiffman writes:

A completely different system of interpretation is that known as pesher, a method particular to the Qumran sect itself although it has some parallels in New Testament exegesis of the Hebrew Bible and in aggadic Midrash. Pesher interpretations of isolated statements are found embedded in the Zadokite Fragments and other sectarian compositions. Strings of pesher interpretations, often called pesharim, are usually arranged in the order of a biblical book. Sustained, running commentaries on biblical texts, mostly from the latter prophets and psalms, have survived. These read like commentaries but are constructed out of the unique type of pesher interpretation.

The term pesher is derived from the Hebrew root p-sh-r, meaning, “to explain” or “expound.” This term, used in both its Hebrew cognate and its Aramaic equivalent, p-t-r, refers to the interpretation of dreams. In the ancient Near East, and in particular in the biblical narratives of Joseph (Genesis 37:5–11, 40:1–41:57) and Daniel (Daniel 7), the practical effect of dreams was intimately bound up with their interpretation. For a dream to come true it must first be properly interpreted. Pesher interpretations regard the biblical prophecies in the same way. The efficacy of prophecy depends on its correct interpretation. Pesher provides such interpretations.

The passage in Clement which references Basilides' gospel reads "Basilides is further said to have written a Gospel himself, and to have claimed to be the disciple of a certain Glaucias, who was an "interpreter of Peter." Clearly I am wondering whether Basilides wrote the so-called 'Gospel of Peter' from Basilides' interpretation of what Simon preached, that Glaucias is some misunderstood verb or noun that became transformed into a proper name and that Clement eventually obscured the connection with Basilides and attributed the text to Mark writing for Peter rather than Basilides for Simon.