It appears here that the preposition for might be missing after the verb search, especially since for does occur in a similar passage nearby:
There is also evidence that the preposition for was sometimes lost during manuscript transmission, although the only instances involve the repeated for in conjuncts, as in the following example where scribe 2 of 𝓟 initially dropped a repeated for but then almost immediately supplied it (the level of ink flow is unchanged):
In this example, the 1830 edition is a firsthand copy of the original manuscript and that edition reads for, so undoubtedly the repeated for was in 3 Nephi 19:23. (For another example, see the discussion regarding the example cited above, Jacob 2:12.)
Here in Jacob 1:16 we are investigating the possibility that a nonrepeated instance of the preposition for was omitted. Elsewhere in the text, we have examples of “searching X”, where the meaning is ‘searching through X’. The most common possibility involves searching scriptures and records (15 times), as in the following examples:
In one case, the text refers to searching people:
In a couple of cases, the text uses the preposition among when referring to searching records or people:
Notice that Mosiah 20:16 uses among, but in the next verse (Mosiah 20:17) the among is omitted (“do not search this people”).
The question here is whether the preposition for can be omitted when the verb is search. There is one other relevant example involving the verb search:
Like Jacob 1:16, this phrase “search knowledge” may mean ‘search for knowledge’, especially since there seems to be a contrast here between searching for knowledge and understanding knowledge that has already been given.
In earlier English, the verb search, when it meant ‘search for’, did not always state the preposition for. The Oxford English Dictionary, under definition 11a of the verb search, provides a number of citations from Early Modern English where search was used without the preposition for or the adverb out that we would expect in today’s English (here cited with original accidentals):
There is also one example of this usage in the King James Bible; in the larger passage, the first instance of search has the for but not the second:
The Hebrew original here uses the same verb for both search for and search. (In fact, the same single Hebrew word is used for my flock and my sheep.) Such variant usage regarding the preposition for implies that in Jacob 1:16 the expression “search much gold and silver” may be fully intended, just as the use of “search knowledge” in 2 Nephi 32:7 also seems to be intended. There is not much scribal evidence to support the accidental loss of the preposition for in these two passages.
It should be pointed out that in Jacob 1:16 the word much in “to search much gold and silver” can be interpreted in two different ways, either as an adverb (‘to search much for gold and silver’) or as a determiner modifying gold and silver (‘to search for much gold and silver’). The first interpretation is supported by the usage in 2 Nephi 9:4: “thou hast searched much—many of you—to know of things to come”. If the first interpretation is accepted, then it seems that the preposition for would need to be explicitly stated. On the other hand, by accepting the reading found in all the textual sources (the one without the preposition for ), we are forced, it would appear, to interpret much as referring to gold and silver rather than to searching. In any event, if Jacob 1:16 were emended, we would have to decide whether the for should go before the much or after it.
Summary: Retain in Jacob 1:16 the use of the verb search without the preposition for (“they also began to search much gold and silver”); such usage is archaic but may be intended here; similarly, the expected for in 2 Nephi 32:7 may have been purposely omitted (“they will not search knowledge”).