Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Ryft]

Have you read any of Bart Erham? He is a biblical scholar and atheist, so he has a rather unique take on everything. What do you make of his assertions of contradictions?

Certainly heard of him. I have paged through Misquoting Jesus at the bookstore a couple of times, contemplating whether to buy it this time or not. I purchase books the way I rent movies, selecting three or four I want and then narrowing it down to purchase one. (My income limits me to about six books per year.) The reason he has not made it beyond my shortlist yet is because scholars reviewing Erham's work report him using questionable methodologies (e.g., distracting the reader with the quantitative strength of the evidence that effectively hides the qualitative weakness thereof) and selective citations (e.g., calling upon the work of Johann Bengel for the former, but quietly passing over his conclusions about the latter), etc. Although I am aware of Erham's argument and the evidence he lays out, I still want to hear him in his own words and will eventually buy the book despite its weakness. Lack of intellectual honesty will not necessarily prevent me from buying a book; I did purchase The God Delusion, after all, which suffers from innumerable weaknesses.

What gets me is the way these theists dismiss the contradictions so evidently there in their bible.

Theists who simply dismiss these allegations are unimportant on the issue, but what do you make of those scholars who have taken the time to refute the allegations (which is very different from dismissing them)? There is a wealth of publications on these refutations which spans centuries (from at least the mid-17th century, so far as I know; e.g., Joannes Thaddaeus, c. 1662). Would I be correct in assuming that you have interacted with at least a couple of reputable publications and are, therefore, dispensing an intellectually honest conclusion that is responsibly informed? For instance, can you name a publication, cite an example of one of its refutations and prove how it fails?

Or is this just gratuitous invective boldly engaging in the Prejudicial Language fallacy?