וַיַּ֣רְא הָעָ֔ם כִּֽי־בֹשֵׁ֥שׁ מֹשֶׁ֖ה לָרֶ֣דֶת מִן־הָהָ֑ר וַיִּקָּהֵ֨ל הָעָ֜ם עַֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן וַיֹּאמְר֤וּ אֵלָיו֙ ק֣וּם ׀ עֲשֵׂה־לָ֣נוּ אֱלֹהִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֤ר יֵֽלְכוּ֙ לְפָנֵ֔ינוּ כִּי־זֶ֣ה ׀ מֹשֶׁ֣ה הָאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר הֶֽעֱלָ֙נוּ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לֹ֥א יָדַ֖עְנוּ מֶה־הָ֥יָה לֽוֹ׃
When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, the people* gathered against Aaron and said to him, “Come, make us a god who shall go before us, for that fellow Moses—the man who brought us from the land of Egypt—we do not know what has happened to him.”
*the people Or the tribal or clan leaders, on the people’s behalf.
(The above rendering and its footnote come from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation.)
Despite the general label הָעָם “the people,” the group that is in view includes few if any women. For the expression הָעָם is used here as a metonym—which is a conventional, compact linguistic device that works on more than one level at a time. (See the section “Gender and Figurative Language” in this introduction, pp. 3–4.)
It went without saying that leaders could speak and act on the people’s behalf. And in the hierarchical society of ancient Israel, they usually did. Reliance upon the people’s representation by “elders” has been the normal way that Moses has been communicating with “the people” thus far: see 4:29–31; 12:3, 27; 19:7–8.
The narrator is speaking about the tribal or clan leaders—while labeling them in terms of their regular role as representatives of the larger populace. That is, a general term (here, “the people”) is applied to a more specific body (here, those who serve in leadership), in order to regard the latter as acting on behalf of the former.
This conventional usage explains why Aaron, in his response to this verse’s proposal by “the people,” will address them as if they are male heads of their household: “Take off the gold rings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters…” (v. 2).
Construing metonyms literally is a common mistake made by readers of translated texts, whenever the source text presupposes different conventions from those of the translation’s language. The result can be that the translation appears to be less coherent (and less plausible) than the original text is, particularly with regard to the gender of those in view.
Here, the metonymy, if taken literally, can be readily misunderstood—as if it were implying that normally the label הָעָם applies only to men who are heads of their household.
As for translation into English, the NJPS rendering “the people” is subject to misconstrual for the reasons stated above. For clarity, a new footnote gives readers a clearer indication of what the ancient audience took for granted.