伯好郎（Peter Saeki）和阿克· 穆爾（Arthur Moule）提出的「阿羅本文本」與「景淨文本」二分法,預設現存唐代漢語景教文獻的作者與受眾都是文化背景一致,神學觀點彼此沿襲的基督徒群體。《尊經》所載的阿羅本入華事蹟跡說明他可能並未參與景教文獻的漢譯, 阿羅本可能是薩珊波斯派出的外交使者,其真實身分在經過《景教碑》的改寫後已演變為傳教者。《一神論》和《序聽迷詩所經》面向的受眾可能是熟悉粟特語（Sogdian）的群體,其創作者應並非進入唐代長安的阿羅本。結合七至八世紀的入華基督徒由粟特人、薩珊波斯人（Persians）和吐火羅人（Tocharians/Bactrians）等多元族群構成的歷史文化背景,《序聽迷詩所經》和《一神論》中的神學觀點與其他漢語景教文獻相比更為多元化,說明漢語景教文獻的作者和受眾並非同一的族群與文化背景。

In their reception of the Chinese Christian documents from the Tang period, Peter Saeki and Arthur Moule put forth a distinction between the Aluoben documents and the Jingjing documents, assuming that the authors of these texts shared the same cultural background, held similar theological opinions and belonged to a single Christian community. However, the account of Zunjing about Alunogen’s arrival in China shows that he might not have been involved in translating the Jingjiao texts into Chinese. In contrast with Peter Saeki and Arthur Moule’s view, it seems reasonable to posit that Aluoben might have been a diplomatic emissary of the Persian Sassanid Empire and that the author of the Xi’an stele subsequently emphasized his identity as a missionary. Given that Yishenlun and Xuting Mishisuo jing were addressed to an audience with an understanding of the Sogdian language, it seems implausible that these two texts were composed by Aluoben in Chang’an and intended for court officials. Furthermore, it is evident that the Christians who emigrated to China in the 7^th and 8^th centuries were of Sogdian, Persian, and Bactrian origins, and therefore had a diverse range of historical and cultural backgrounds. In addition, an examination of the theological opinions expressed in Yishenlun and Xuting Mishisuo jing in comparison to those found in other Jingjiao texts reveals notable divergences. These elements rather suggest that the authors and intended addressees of the Chinese Christian texts were part of disparate groups with distinct cultural backgrounds and theological features.