Here Oliver Cowdery added the preposition with when he proofed scribe 2’s text in 𝓟. One may wonder if Oliver’s correction was based on the reading in 𝓞 or if he decided on his own that there was a missing preposition here and that it should be with (perhaps 𝓞 itself read incorrectly here without any preposition). This second possibility suggests an alternative emendation: namely, “he contended again against Amlici”, which would have obviously been more susceptible to scribal omission because of the similarity of again and against. The original text has six instances of again against:
Moreover, for half of these, there has been a loss in the printed editions of the again: in the 1892 RLDS edition for Alma 44:19, in the 1837 edition for 3 Nephi 2:18, and in the 1874 RLDS edition for Mormon 4:16. But there has been no loss of the against when preceded by again. The against, of course, is more crucial to the syntax, which probably explains the tendency to lose the again rather than the against.
There is clear evidence in the manuscripts that the scribes could occasionally omit the preposition with or against. In each case, the manuscript was corrected:
There are more examples of with than against being omitted (three to one), but of course with is much more frequent in the text than against (at a ratio of roughly three to one), which means that the rate of omission is about the same for both these prepositions.
When we consider the verb contend, we have examples of both with and against when referring to fighting an enemy, with 38 examples of with and 9 of against. However, elsewhere in Alma 2, the text always uses “contend with”, never “contend against”, in describing the fighting of Alma and the Nephites on the one side, and Amlici and the Amlicites as well as the Lamanites and their king on the other side:
Thus Oliver Cowdery’s inserted with in verse 31 is consistent with usage throughout Alma 2. And even if the with is the result of Oliver’s own emendation (supposing 𝓞 was also missing the preposition), it was probably the correct reading in the original text. If 𝓞 had the preposition and it had been against, there is no strong reason why Oliver would have rejected against in favor of with. Elsewhere we find no examples of textual variation between with and against, which implies that Oliver would never have replaced against with with. The critical text will therefore accept the with that Oliver inserted here in Alma 2:31 since it probably represents the original reading here (as well as the reading in 𝓞). Oliver’s with is most probably the result of him making sure that 𝓟 read according to 𝓞.
Summary: Accept in Alma 2:31 Oliver Cowdery’s supralinearly inserted with, most probably the reading of 𝓞; elsewhere in this chapter, the text consistently uses the preposition with when referring to someone contending against an opponent in battle.