בִּלְעָדַ֗י רַ֚ק אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָֽכְל֣וּ הַנְּעָרִ֔ים וְחֵ֙לֶק֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הָלְכ֖וּ אִתִּ֑י עָנֵר֙ אֶשְׁכֹּ֣ל וּמַמְרֵ֔א הֵ֖ם יִקְח֥וּ חֶלְקָֽם׃
For me, nothing but what my servants have used up; as for the share of those who went with me—Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre—let them take their share.”
(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 אִישׁ—in this case, its plural form—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
Prototypically, אֲנָשִׁים is used to refer to a set of participants in the depicted situation, in terms of that situation. That is precisely what is happening in this case. Usually when the situating noun is used in a definite noun phrase (e.g., with the definite article, as here), it points to the most salient (and essential) participant in the schematically depicted situation under discussion. Here, the speaker is indeed calling attention to salient participants in such a situation—because he wants to make sure that they are not overlooked. (Their gender is not at issue.)
Because it is a conventional application of אִישׁ, that situational construal of אֲנָשִׁים would have come readily and reliably to the audience’s mind. For that reason, and because it yields a coherent and informative text, it must be the plain sense of this passage.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘the men’ nowadays expresses the referents’ gender more than their participation in the depicted situation. The latter aspect is better expressed in English by the demonstrative pronoun.