651 “Again” translates ἔτι (the text conjectured by Niese, and followed by Schreckenberg and others). Although Josephus uses φησί and indicative (rather than the indirect construction of 1.192), there are good reasons to regard this section as his own précis (though perhaps less distorted than 1.191): the story here is summarized, lacks narrative detail and uses euphemism (“arrived in their country”). Thackeray and Doran 1985 also decline to use quotation marks. The era of the (Persian) satraps was before Alexander, and the similar ending of this tale to that just cited (fines, then pardon) suggests that it could have functioned for Ps.-Hecataeus as a precedent for Alexander (perhaps one cited in his hearing in relation to the incident of the temple of Bel). For Josephus it is useful as a second proof, even though the merely monetary punishment here is less congruent with his claim in 1.191 than the previous tale.