תִּכְבַּ֧ד הָעֲבֹדָ֛ה עַל־הָאֲנָשִׁ֖ים וְיַעֲשׂוּ־בָ֑הּ וְאַל־יִשְׁע֖וּ בְּדִבְרֵי־שָֽׁקֶר׃
Let heavier work be laid upon those involved; let them keep at it and not pay attention to deceitful promises.”
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ—in this case its plural form אֲנָשִׁים—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
Heb. הָאֲנָשִׁים. Pharaoh employs the situating noun in a schematic, summary depiction of the situation that he desires to achieve. In so doing, he regards its essential participants in terms of their involvement in the situation already under discussion.
The noun phrase הָאֲנָשִׁים also marks a cognitive point of reference for the desired action.
This prototypical usage of אִישׁ is highly available, cognitively speaking. The resulting construal immediately yields an informative and coherent text. Hence that construal must be considered the plain sense of Pharaoh’s utterance.
The situation-oriented construal meanwhile explains why Pharaoh changes his label for the oppressed workers, after having called them הָעָם (v. 4, 5, 7; as does the narrator in vv. 6, 10, 12). It also explains why he does not point to his referents more simply via a possessive direct-object suffix: עֲלֵיהֶם, as he did in v. 8. The situating noun is best for offering additional guidance to one’s audience, as a matter of communicative efficiency.
Gender is not at issue, and there is no warrant for rendering in gendered terms.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS rendering ‘the men’ nowadays comes across as if gender is at issue. One alternative is a simple pronoun (‘them’), as used by NRSV, but that wording detracts from the summarizing nature of the statement, making it sound repetitive instead. The revised rendering restores the focus upon the situation.