[DBrow]

I didn't mean that King David was a farmer himself. I looked at the story in very general terms. I'm sorry if I offended you; that surely was not my intent.

If you look at climate data for the region and the time, the climate had begun to be more stable and predictable (it was not that long after the end of the last Ice Age). A more stable climate meant that agriculture was possible.

The tribe, like many tribes in the area, was nomadic (for a number of reasons, not just Saul). When David took the throne, the tribe began to settle down, and started an agricultural existence with a fixed location and permanent buildings.

If I remember the story, the tribe did flourish under King David.

[70times7]

Thanks, I was not offended, but I do think it is (to say the least) an odd way to use the account.

David was in a group - but none of the tribes of Israel were with him; they were positioned throughout the land.

Then to suggest that the "tribe" flourished under David because of a more stable agricultural environment strikes me as completely missing all of the points. Or perhaps I'm missing something - the civil war in David's later years... Bad crops in successive years? "Absolem, oh Absolem! You should have irrigated!"