In classes earlier on in my life I was taught that Nestorius was a false teacher since he taught what some have called the "two board" theory. In this theory, There's two Jesuses (what's the Plural of Jesus in English?) glued together. These two Jesuses (one human and the other divine) do not interact with each other. Instead, they take turns.
Before I continue on, please let me apologize if that illustration is somewhat crass. I'm just simply handing down what was handed down to me.
In Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides, it seems as if the issue was far more that he was very vague in his explanations than that his Christology was heretical. In one of the final quotes (of the earlier cited book) there is this assessment:
“The difference between Nestorius and Cyril is that whereas Nestorius is throughout perfectly consistent, and his theory a brilliant attempt to solve the problem on the basis of a principle which renders a solution impossible, Cyril's greatness lies in the very fact of his inconsistency. He would no more question the antithesis between godhead and manhood than would Nestorius, but where the truth was too much for his system, he preferred the truth to the system, and by his self-contradiction (which Nestorius exposes again and again) left room for further development of Christological doctrine in the future. What, then, will be our judgement on Nestorius? If the above interpretation of his teaching be true, he surely represents a very gallant and ingenious attempt to explain the Incarnation without giving up the belief that in Christ is to be found a complete human person as well as a complete divine person. He could not think of humanity except as existing in a distinct human person; for him, to deny the human ⲩⲡⲟⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ of Christ was to teach an Apollinarian maimed humanity.' Cyril boldly gave up belief in a distinct human ⲩⲡⲟⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ in Christ. Nestorius saw at once that this was inconsistent with the belief of both as to the relation between God and man, but in Cyril's inconsistency we have still a challenge to thought and to the search for a perfect Christology which is not to be found in the barren coherence of Nestorius.” (Appendix IV)
My question is this, then: Did Nestorius deny key aspects of Christology? Or was he just sloppy in his treatment of it? Or is there some other explanation?
As a gentle reminder, I'd appreciate citations from credible sources, especially from primary sources. I do read Greek, Hebrew, some Latin, and some Syriac. So those sources are welcome, in case the sources are only present in the original languages.