"In conclusion, we must acknowledge that the texts before us are the product of a living and evolving tradition, composed, redacted, transmitted, and continuously interpreted and re-interpreted, across countless unknown generations. Much like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, what we call “Mandaeism” is at all times and in all places the dynamic expression of individuals and communities of practice—including, one might add, the community of scholars who study them. All our efforts at analyzing religions rely as much upon the texts before us as upon our own “imaginative acts of comparison and generalization,” and if I have dwelled more upon the latter than the former in these concluding remarks, it is only because a healthy degree of skepticism towards and self-awareness of these analytical acts should be the foremost object of any historian of these religions. Texts such as the Book of John are not isolated epigraphic remains, any more than Mandaeans are fossils, and therefore any approach that attempts to collapse the former into a single chronotope or privilege a specific social, religious, and historical moment out of the entire span of Mandaean history is inherently defective. Such approaches are as misguided and limited as the application of palaeontological methodology to living wildlife communities would be."