During the early transmission of the text, there were several significant omissions here in Alma 54:1 for the expression “in the commencement of the twenty and ninth year of the reign of the judges”. In fact, we have no extant manuscript evidence that this expression ever had the phrase “of the reign”. The extant portion of the original manuscript shows that the phrase “of the judges” was initially omitted and then supralinearly inserted at the beginning of a line. It is possible that an original “of the reign” was also initially omitted and supralinearly inserted at the end of the previous line in 𝓞, which is no longer extant. This possibility is represented as follows in the transcript for 𝓞:
In line 5, Oliver Cowdery, the scribe in 𝓞, miswrote Ammoron as Amamoron, which he later corrected to Amoron (although Oliver undoubtedly intended to correct the name to Ammoron). This correction in the name is written with heavier ink flow. Oliver also omitted “of the judges” in 𝓞; this phrase is supralinearly inserted in line 5 and with heavier ink flow, just like the name correction. But this phrase is written even higher up in the interlinear space than the name correction. Moreover, the supralinear phrase begins in the gutter. It appears Oliver corrected the name prior to supralinearly inserting the phrase “of the judges”.
The problem here is that we cannot be sure whether the preceding phrase, “of the reign”, was ever in 𝓞. There is no room for it in the lacuna at the end of line 4, as noted in the transcript. If “of the reign” was in 𝓞, it would have been supralinearly inserted at the end of the line. Of course, it is also possible that the phrase was in the original text but was omitted by Oliver Cowdery when he took down Joseph Smith’s dictation and was somehow left missing when Oliver supralinearly inserted “of the judges”. One would think that if “of the reign” had been supralinearly inserted in 𝓞 (especially with heavier ink flow), it would have been copied into 𝓟.
When we examine 𝓟, the copy of 𝓞, we discover that the phrase “of the reign” is missing there (along with the initial phrase “the commencement of”):
In accord with the reading in 𝓞, the 1981 LDS edition restored the original phrase “the commencement of” to this passage. (For further discussion of cases where “the commencement of” has been omitted from the text, if only momentarily, see under Alma 30:5.) On the other hand, all the printed editions follow 𝓟 in lacking the phrase “of the reign” here in Alma 54:1. This phrase is definitely expected in expressions of the form “Xth year of the reign of the judges”. In the earliest extant sources for the text, there are 96 instances of “Xth year of the reign of the judges”. Besides the example here in Alma 54:1, there is only one other instance of “Xth year of the judges”, in Alma 16:9: “and thus ended the eleventh year of the judges”. 𝓞 is not extant for Alma 16, so it is possible that 𝓞 had the phrase “of the reign” and that it was lost when Oliver Cowdery copied the text from 𝓞 into 𝓟 (or perhaps it was omitted in 𝓞 itself ). There is definitely evidence that “of the reign” can be lost from the text, although we have no confirmed cases where Oliver himself made such a mistake:
Although the reading in Alma 16:9 without “of the reign” may be an error, the critical text will maintain it since such a reading is possible. Similarly, here in Alma 54:1, the earliest extant reading without “of the reign” will also be maintained, even though the longer reading with the phrase may actually be the original reading. Basically, we will follow the earliest textual sources in determining whether the expression “Xth year of the reign of the judges” should actually have the phrase “of the reign”.
Summary: Maintain in Alma 54:1 the reading based on the extant portions of 𝓞, “in the commencement of the twenty and ninth year of the judges”, although the phrase “of the reign” may have been in the original text; the reading without “of the reign” is supported by the reading in Alma 16:9 (“and thus ended the eleventh year of the judges”), although this too may be an error.