The Nestorian

As to what saved the Orient: Wood pins Acacius mid AD 480s for the recovery of early fifth century historiography, and for the reconstruction of the Church's history before that - mainly done from saints' lives. Most such vitae were themselves being (re)composed around that time.

Acacius also laid down the canon of Catholicoi, which sequence Barhebraeus (for his own reasons) approved up to Dadishoʿ [and Ephesus]. Acacius believed that Catholicoi were what we'd call Popes; against Bar Sauma's opinion, which seems to me more Ludovician. In this he had the support of the new Shah Kavad, in need of a stronger West in the face of a now-Hunnish East.

Woods further claims that the histories start to note the diplomacy between the shah and the Church. Of course there had been quite a bit of this diplomacy back in AD 410-24 when that first Yazdegird enabled the synods. But (if we are to credit Woods) the earlier segments of the histories - therefore the fifth century historical sources - did not emphasise this.

Acacius dabbled in theology also, going so far as to dress it up in terms familiar to Nicaea and Constantinople-381 (i.e. Theodosius I). The Oriental Church could, thereby, at least explain itself to Melkites and to Miaphysites. I suspect this, not Bar Sauma, is about where Nestorius comes in. Nestorius might not have come in very strong, even then - Nestorius' magnum-opus won't see translation until the middle sixth century AD.

Where Acacius agreed with Bar Sauma was in abolishing the celibacy requirement. Here followed another turbulence in the East, Catholicos Shila being called out for nepotism if not full pornocracy. Up to the AD 530s a strife broke out between Elishe, related to Shila; and Narsai, not. Ripe for reform.