I don't know. Maybe I'm over-thinking this. I've noticed that the EO's have stopped commenting and that Deacon Lance thinks the stuff quoted over the past couple of days sounds Orthodox. Maybe this stuff is good enough for the Chalcedonians. Maybe it should be good enough for the OO's too. I don't think so, though. I don't think the OO's would sign onto this, and I have my doubts as to whether the EO's would.
I can't speak for other but as one of the EO's whose largely stopped commenting, its because the nature of the discussion has become thoroughly confused. As PetertheAleut pointed we have one actual member of the Church of East saying things that are clearly unacceptable from an Orthodox point-of-view, but then we have Deacon Lance and Nazarene, who are not members of the Church of the East or Orthodox, arguing that the Church of the East actually believes something different from what rafa999 is saying. Given my experience with Roman Catholics claiming Orthodox believe this or that, when we don't, and Roman Catholics getting frustrated about what they see as Orthdox mischaracterization of their own beliefs/practices, I'm reluctant to get into that side of the debate.
Then we have the double problem of Mar Babai. Problem one is that apparently the full text of his 'authoritative' book is not available in English (and I don't read Syriac). This makes it extremely difficult to comment on in a general sense--we've been over this in EO and OO discussions. It's not that hard to find an individual passage in OO fathers and go 'ah ha, Monophysite!'; and contrariwise, you can find individual passages in EO fathers 'ah ha, dividing the Natures!', but then if one reads the paragraph before or the paragraph after, it turns out that passage in question needs to be understood in a different sense. Problem two is that since he is no longer in a position to be in or out of communion with, I personally am only tangentially interested in what Mar Babai actually believed. To me the real question is what the current CoE thinks he believed. Nestorius and Eutyches thought the Apostles believed as they did although they were incorrect. So in terms of the present, the essential question is, does what the COE believe that Mar Babai believed coincide with Nestorius or with St. Paul? With Theodore or St. John Chrysostom?
All that said, the excerpt Nazarene posted seems problematic to me. Again, context is relevant, depending on what came before and after, perhaps the structure is pure rhetorical device and it can be understood as Orthodox. But Mar Babai appears to be linguistically avoiding using 2 subjects, while clearly dividing how each thing was done. I.e., this action was 'as a man', this action was 'as a God'. But which actions were 'as a God-man', that is at what point does one simply speak of the actions of the Hypostatic Union? To me this seems different than St. Leo's:
There enters then these lower parts of the world the Son of God, descending from His heavenly home and yet not quitting His Father’s glory, begotten in a new order by a new nativity. In a new order, because being invisible in His own nature, He became visible in ours, and He whom nothing could contain was content to be contained. abiding before all time He began to be in time: the Lord of all things, He obscured His immeasurable majesty and took on Him the form of a servant: being God that cannot suffer, He did not disdain to be man that can, and, immortal as He is, to subject Himself to the laws of death. The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness: nor in the Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin’s womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours. For He who is true God is also true man
St. Leo (and EO's) does distinguish that Jesus Christ died 'because He was a man' and that He rose again 'because He was a God', but there's no sense of alternation. We can (and do) say just as truly that 'Jesus Christ died and rose again'; 'God died and rose again'. For Orthodox, even if the death was possible because of Christ's human nature, it was 'as God and man' that He died. And 'as God and man' that He rose from the dead. And it is that complete identification of the union which seems missing in Mar Babai.
For Mar Babai:
He was laid in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes, as Man;
and the watchers extolled Him with their praises, as God.
For St. Leo
descending from His heavenly home and yet not quitting His Father’s glory
That is, for Mar Babai: "This was man, then this was God", for Orthodox "this part of the action was because He was man, and this part if because He was God, but this was God-man and then this was also God-man."
A final note on overthinking--it certainly seems possible here. Working through several languages with what are abstract philosophical categories can easily get that way. That's why going all the way back to St. Cyril and Nestorius, the focus always came back to the concrete implications. "Did or did not the Logos dies for us?" "Was the Virgin the Theotokos?" "Did the Son of God have blood?" Unlike hypostatis or kyana, those are concrete questions that don't slip and slide nearly do much depending on what language you're using or the presuppositions of your translator.