וַיִּרְא֣וּ אַנְשֵֽׁי־יִ֠שְׂרָאֵ֠ל אֲשֶׁר־בְּעֵ֨בֶר הָעֵ֜מֶק וַאֲשֶׁ֣ר ׀ בְּעֵ֣בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֗ן כִּי־נָ֙סוּ֙ אַנְשֵׁ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְכִי־מֵ֖תוּ שָׁא֣וּל וּבָנָ֑יו וַיַּעַזְב֤וּ אֶת־הֶעָרִים֙ וַיָּנֻ֔סוּ וַיָּבֹ֣אוּ פְלִשְׁתִּ֔ים וַיֵּשְׁב֖וּ בָּהֶֽן׃
And when the Israelite inhabitants on the other side of the valley and on the other side of the Jordan saw that the men of Israel had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they abandoned the towns and fled; the Philistines then came and occupied them.
(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 document, pp. 11–16.)
The term אַנְשֵׁי־יִשְׂרָאֵל appears twice in this verse. In this first instance, it must refer to those who were involved in the situation by virtue of their living in the nearby towns (hence “they abandoned the towns” later in this verse). In the second instance, the term must refer to those fighting in the militia on the battlefield. That label thus construes both groups similarly—in terms of their relationship to Israel (in contrast with Philistia). The distinction between the two groups would have been obvious to the ancient audience, based on salience.
In the first instance, women cannot be reliably excluded from view as inhabitants of the towns. In the second instance, however, they are not in view (given the military context).
As for rendering into English, the NJPS use of ‘the men of Israel’ for both instances is confusing. English idiom expects a different label for each group (or the explicit addition of a notice such as “the rest of the men of Israel”). The revised rendering clarifies that the two referents are distinct.