...for me it's evidently the second of those two examples..
OK, but then what does the first part of the sentence have to do with the second?
The treasure is death. K.
Why does that treasure, death, belong to Sion and to Dagobert II?
Seems to me it could also be a kind of a warning, also - no? Touch this treasure and DIE? The treasure BRINGS death to whomever finds it?
The French researcher P Silvain has a theory - and I know he is said to have some wild theories, but this one is interesting, I think, at least as an argument - that whilst the de-coding of the parchment is accurate, it has been incorrectly read (if you're French) or translated (if you're English). I've mentioned this before, mainly as a diversion, which it probably is now, but for what it's worth, his theory goes something as follows.
First line of code:A Dagobert II
As in - "to Dagobert", as in addressing Dagobert, as in presenting something to him.Roi et a Sion est ce tresor
He switches the order round, so it goes "... this treasure, the King of Sion (King of the Jews)" - obviously going for the "virgule" option on the "il est la mort" bit to follow, intimating that Dagobert is being presented with an important body.est il est la mort
He's referring to a body, as shown above, but has three meanings for the phrase, all of which he believes are vaild:
1. He is there dead (as in the body is buried here / over there).
2. It is death (the penalty for entering the tomb is death).
3. By inserting an apostrophe between the "l" and the "a" of "la" - it becomes "il est l'amor(e)" - as in he is love (like Christ).
I don't think I believe that, and it's a diversion really - sorry - but I still like it as an example of lateral thinking.
But I still think that the parchments, and other such material, might be worth having another look at in the context of a cult of the dead, and the crista, though.