In the last few years a new scholar has come on the scene named Anthony Kaldellis. He received his PhD in History in 2001 from the University of Michigan, and is currently associate professor of Greek and Latin studies at the Ohio State University ( omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/peop...r.php )

According to a 2005 review of one of his books (on Procopius), Kaldellis' scholarship is coming into direct conflict with the "establishment" on several issues of great interest to Pagans and Pagan scholars in particular:

(1) "an interpretation of the Christian monarchies of late antiquity and early Byzantium as outright tyrannies"

(2) "the presence of an anti-Christian counter-culture" (Hellenic/Platonic/Pagan) in late antiquity and in Byzantium.

(3) "the esoteric nature of select Byzantine authors" - including Procopius and Psellos (that is, Kaldellis claims that they were both part of the Hellenic "counter-culture").

(4) "the classical astuteness and Platonism of many key Byzantine authorities" - that is, Kaldellis claims that the "classicism" of late antique and Byzantine Hellenes was "astute", especially that it should be seen not as "degenerate", "clusmy", etc - but rather as having genuine serious continuity with classical tradition - including both with traditional polytheistic religion and with Platonic philosophy.

(5) Also, Kaldellis attacks contemporary scholars like Averil Cameron, who have succeeded in convincing everyone (or nearly everyone in the English speaking academic community) to accept a crudely pro-Christian view of the struggle between Christianity and Paganism in late antiquity. The Christianizing view of late antique Paganism is used uncritically by Ronald Hutton -and it is central to his thesis that Paganism "died" and that there is, therefore, no possible continuity between modern Paganism and ancient Paganism.

See the full review here: ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/200...0-11.html