I would second the comments about Nestorius. Very little has been written. But current scholarship has determined that Nestorius did not believe the things for which he was anathematized at the council of Ephesus in 431. His recently discovered "Book of Heraclides" cites Cyril (who led the council and whose theology won the day) as having enlisted the help of armed gangs of thugs to basically force his point of view across on the council. (And, his charges against Nestorius were false; nevertheless, they were ratified by the council).
Moffett, writing in "A History of Christianity in Asia" cites theologians who say that Nestorius's Christology was "weak" but in no way heretical.
The outworkings of this council caused the most egregious schisms in Christian history, and yet they are little understood. And as it turns out, the Rome/Constantinople church complex was hugely in the wrong during this whole ordeal.
John, I don't want to take this thread off track, but a few points bear mentioning.
"Recently discovered" is not quite accurate by today's standard of recent. A Syriac version of the
Book of Heraclides was published in 1910, so it has been accessible for almost 100 years. In that time, more than a little ink has been spilt.
Second, accusations of wrongdoing are very widespread, and are not all to be taken at face value: in addition, theological violence does seem to have been more widespread in earlier times. Augustine writes of narrowly avoiding some armed Donatists, Athanasius was accused of murder, and "decently and in order" is not the first thing that leaps to mind when reading about what happened at councils.
Third, scholars can be found to say almost anything about almost anybody. If a contention is not demonstrated by a contextual and sympathetic reading of the primary sources, the fact that a scholar says it is almost evidence against it.
Perhaps we should take this up on another thread, but I am wondering what you mean by "wrong". Wrong in substance? Wrong in manner?
Theodoret provides some interesting light, as a friend of Nestorius. He was understandably reluctant to pronounce an anathema, and did not think that Nestorius was guilty as charged. He did at last, however, pronounce a conditional condemnation, along the lines of, "If he believes
that, then he is wrong." Which exemplifies that though the question of whether Nestorius was a Nestorian may be a little vague, the fact that Nestorian Christology is wrong is pretty clear.
