revived / remains 

So:
 What Toptchyan wrote is that after Malkhasyants (1940, and Sarkissian's article is from March 1940, so just before it) and untill Toumanoff (1961), thus "second half of the 20th century", there has been no serious scholarship opposing the 5th c. dating. You (Grandmaster) mentioned earlier Joseph P. Smith (1952) but (i) his book has an extremely thin link with the debate on the dating, (ii) he's not specialised in this area, and most of all (iii) he didn't take side in his very few lines on Moses. Topchyan not being contradicted on this, it is clear that there's a break of 21 years between Malkhasyants' book and the next serious scholar contesting the 5th c. dating (according to Topchyan, "la publication de son livre régla la question pour environ deux décennies" or in English "the publishing of his book settled the issue for approximately two decades"). Therefore, during these two decades, the issue didn't "remain" disputed (i.e. no serious scholarship published), and Toumanoff' s publishing "revived" the critical points in 1961.
 Where you perhaps have a point (with "remains") is that Toumanoff's main point, the "Bagratids argument", had already been raised before by Adontz and Manandian. It had been addressed by Malkhasyants though (i.e. Moses wrote that Bagratids were tagadir ev aspet, two titles from the Arsacid period which were forgotten in latter centuries).
 I think the article should represent both the historiographical break and the historiographical link, and I think the current sentence do so ("revived... continue to maintain"). I tried to reword it, but in fact, the more I think about the issue and the more I read the sentence, the less I see the problem with it.
  
Oh, btw, no need to attack Toptchyan: Mahé for instance gives absolutely no reference between 1940 and 1961.   

Did you actually read Sarkissian's article? He quotes authors from 1920s and 1930s, and says: 

Such was, and to a large extent still is, the traditional view about the life and the work of Moses of Khoren which was accepted by the Armenians. It is this traditional and unquestioned view that has been subjected to much severe criticism during the course of the past hundred years. The object of this paper is to summarize and evaluate such criticism.

So according to Sarkissian, during the 100 years before 1940 the 5th century dating was constantly in dispute. Thus, Topchyan contradicts other sources. Criticism was not revived, it always existed. If you insist on revived claim, it must be presented only as Topchyan's personal opinion, and not as a fact, because it is not true. master