The second even in the original manuscript for Alma 48:14 appears to be unnecessary. And it could be an error in 𝓞, an accidental repetition. Oliver Cowdery dropped this repeated even when he copied this passage into the printer’s manuscript. Elsewhere in the text, we can find a few more examples of repeated even that seem unnecessary:
Nonetheless, in these three examples the repetition does not jar the reader like it does in the original text for Alma 48:14. Thus Oliver Cowdery’s emendation of the text could be retained in the standard text, but the critical text will restore the repeated even since it is the reading in 𝓞.
Here in Alma 48:14 the repeated even seems to be a type of multiple negative that extends the scope of negation of the first even. A related instance of this kind of extended negation seems to have occurred in the original text for Alma 43:20; there the conjunction but extends the negation of a previous only, but without reversing the implied negation. Ross Geddes points out (personal communication, 23 August 2004) that the negative except is also repeated in Alma 48:14, in a coordinative sense and without reversing polarity:
Only the second except is extant in 𝓞, but there is room for the first except between extant fragments of 𝓞. For further discussion of the repetition of negative elements in order to maintain the scope of negation, see under negation in volume 3.
Summary: Despite its difficulty, the repeated even in Alma 48:14 will be restored in the critical text (“even to the shedding of blood / even if it were necessary”).