It is a bitter curiosity of history, that Nestorius thought the same way. He died just in 451, after the convocation of the Council of Chalcedon and before its opening.

As the whole life of Nestorius, according to the apt expression of his friend Irenaeus, is a "tragedy", so his end is dramatic to the point of enchantment. The newly discovered materials about its end are positively waiting for their historian-novelist.

Nestorius' peaceful life in the Great Oasis of Kargeh, in particular in the city of Hibe, was catastrophically disrupted by the raid and devastation of the barbarians, the nobads, who came from the upper reaches of the Nile. The nobads in the crowd of captives also captured Nestorius. But, trembled by their rivals in robbery, namely the tribe of Maziks, the Nobads threw the captives and entrusted them to the intelligent leadership of Nestorius. They were ordered to go to the Nile Valley. In essence, it was liberation. Everyone began to save themselves as best they could. However, a group remained with Nestorius, which reached the city of Panopolis (Ahmin). Here Nestorius stayed for several years, hiding in a very hot place and fearing revenge from the fanatical monastic leader Schnudi, who lived nearby.

But Dioscorus and Chrysaphius (then still in force), having learned of the fate of Nestorius, sentenced him to exile in upper Egypt to Elephantine (Aswan), on the border (a kind of Siberia). From there, it was soon ordered to return him to Panopolis. The old man returned there, already half-broken. On the way, he fell from a donkey and broke his arm and ribs. From here he was sent to a new, fifth place of exile, and from there he was driven to the sixth, they wanted to "drive him in". And the "strong" old man did not abandon his pen in this sixth place of exile, he was completing his apology, a monument known to the historian Evagrius, but just discovered for us in the Syriac language and published only in 1910 in Germany in translation by Bejan and in French with his own cooperation by Abbé Nau (F. Nau. Paris, 1910). In 1908, Béthune-Backer published a study entitled "Nestorius and his Teaching", in which he argued that Nestorius was Orthodox and that his condemnation was a mistake. Indeed, the work of Nestorius (this is a large volume of 300 pages) provides fresh material for the revision of the question of Nestorius. It clearly illuminates Nestorius' subjective point of view on his whole affair.

Nestorius' work in Syrian bears the title "Tegurta Heraclidis". This can be translated: "The Commerce of Heraclides". Béthune-Baker translated: "The Bazaar of Heraclides". But this is probably a translation of the Greek word "πραγματεία", which means a trade treaty, a treatise. Hence the simple "treatise" in the literary sense: "Πραγματεία περι = treatise on..." Heraclides of Damascus is a pseudonym. The name of Nestorius would have doomed the book to be burned. The book presents a dialogue between Nestorius and Sophronius. The latter pseudonym clearly hides Cyril of Alexandria. In the dialogue, the acts of the Council of Ephesus in 431 and many other writings of Cyril are criticized. Nestorius then responds to the information that has reached him about the affair of Eutychus and Flavian, about the shameful triumph of Dioscorus in Ephesus in 449, about the death of Flavian, about the intervention of Pope Leo, about the death of Theodosius II, and about the new course under Pulcherius and Marcian. The last fact, unknown to us from other sources, is Dioscorus' attempt to escape from exile. And in exile, as we know, Dioscorus was nevertheless taken away after the Council of Chalcedon, namely to the Paphlagonian Gangras. Nestorius no longer speaks of the Council of Chalcedon. His pen stopped before receiving information about the acts of the council.

We know that Nestorius was visited in an oasis by Paul, a bishop from Syria, who was later deposed by Dioscorus in Ephesus. At the death of Nestorius, his faithful friend, the exiled bishop Dorotheus of Marcianopolis, was with him. These are the ways in which Nestorius inquired. He was delighted with the tomos of Pope Leo and did not write to him only so as not to damage the authority of the Pope with his correspondence. But Nestorius wrote a letter to the people of Constantinople, expressing his solidarity with Flavian and Pope Leo. Here he condemns and anathematizes Eutychus, criticizes the judgments of certain "Nestorians" and Apollinarians. This letter gave rise in Constantinople to seek that Nestorius be invited to the Council of Chalcedon. A few decades later, the Alexandrian Patriarch Timothy Elurus tells us that at that moment an envoy from the emperor Marcian arrived to Nestorius in the area near Ahmin (Panopolis) and announced to Nestorius, and with him to Dorotheus of Macrianople, that they should no longer fear the persecution of their enemies. Zacharias Scholasticus adds to this that the exiles even set out on their journey. Where to? As if to himself, to his native lands. But the fall from the horse hastened the death of Nestorius. Nestorian biographers depict this moment as the beginning of Nestorius' complete rehabilitation and that only death prevented him from experiencing the triumph. Jacobite biographers (Monophysites), on the contrary, depict this moment as an adventurous attempt by Nestorius to escape from exile, and his fall from his horse ended in a terrible death: the loss of his tongue and the filling of the belly of the man killed by worms...

Nestorius' Apology reflects his heroic conviction that he would not return from exile, and therefore he selflessly writes: "My fervent desire is that the Lord of heaven and earth be blessed! And let Nestorius remain anathema. It pleases the Lord that people should be reconciled to Him, cursing me. I would not refuse to cross out what I said if I were sure that it was necessary and that people would turn to God through it."

Thus, by greeting Leo and Flavian and anathematizing himself, Nestorius fulfilled the decrees and appeals of the Council of Chalcedon.

What is the heresy of Nestorius, his personal guilt and responsibility? That "Nestorianism" is a definite Christological error and heresy does not constitute any question.

At first, Nestorius was understood and identified with Paul of Samosata. This is an obvious mistake. Nestorius affirmed the fullness of divinity in the God-Man unconditionally. Some accused him of affirming "two Sons, two persons in Jesus Christ." This deviation of the Antiochian authorities, Diodorus and Theodore, according to the testimony of Theodoret, is alien to both him and Nestorius. In the teaching about the Mother of God, Nestorius allowed a frivolous misunderstanding. But that was before the church formally approved the expression. Doubts about the accuracy of the term "Mother of God" are similar to the doubts of the "East" about the term "omoousios" after the Council of Nicaea.

Nestorius himself subscribed to the theology of Leo and Flavian. What then? Was there a misunderstanding in his identification with them? For Pope Leo himself and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon declared their disagreement with Nestorius. The agreement was not denied in the formula "two natures," but the divergence was affirmed in the understanding of the "image of union" of these natures. How are they connected? As early as the time of the Council of Ephesus in 431, Nestorius recognized the two natures as united in one person. And Kirill is in one hypostasis.

All the Monophysites (there are many varieties of them) believed that they were correctly interpreting Cyril when, following him, they asserted that in Christ after union there remained only one nature, i.e. one hypostasis, i.e. one person.

The Diphysites, i.e. the Orthodox, believing that they were correctly interpreting Cyril, asserted (as it was in Chalcedon) that after union in Jesus Christ there are two natures, one hypostasis (as in Cyril) and one person.

The Nestorians (also Diphysites) asserted that in Christ after union there are two natures, two hypostases (contrary to Cyril and the Orthodox) and one person. Cyril is a Monophysite for them already because he affirms one hypostasis. This means that this is the knot of the dispute.