Celsus passes over the prophecies
After this, I do not know how, he willingly passes over the most important point in the case for Jesus: that he was foretold by the prophets of the Jews, by Moses and those after him, and even by those before Moses. I think he does so because he cannot answer the argument, any more than the Jews can, or the sects that do not want Jesus to have been foretold. Perhaps he did not even know the prophecies about Jesus. For had he taken up what Christians say, that many prophets foretold the Saviour's coming, he would not have put into the mouth of his Jew words that would have suited a Samaritan or a Sadducee better. Nor would the Jew of his invented speech have said: "But a prophet of mine once said in Jerusalem that a Son of God will come, judge of the holy and punisher of the unrighteous."
For it was not just one prophet who foretold the things about Christ. And even if the Samaritans or the Sadducees, who accept only the books of Moses, were to say that the Christ was foretold in those books, still the prophecy was certainly not spoken in Jerusalem, which had not yet been named in the time of Moses.
If only, then, all who accuse our teaching were as ignorant as this, not only of the facts but even of the bare letter of Scripture, and accused Christianity in that state, so that their argument might lack even ordinary persuasiveness, the kind able to draw away the unsteady and those who believe "for a while" (Luke 8:13), not from faith but from little faith.
But a Jew would not admit that any prophet said that a Son of God would come. What they say is that the Christ of God will come. And indeed they often argue with us straight away about the Son of God, as though there were no such being and none had been foretold. We are not saying that a Son of God is not foretold, but that Celsus has given the Jewish character, who does not admit any such thing, words that do not fit him: "A prophet of mine once said in Jerusalem that a Son of God will come."
Greek
Μετὰ ταῦτ᾿ οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπως τὸ μέγιστον περὶ τῆς συστάσεως τοῦ Ἰησοῦ κεφάλαιον, ὡς ὅτι ἐπροφητεύθη ὑπὸ τῶν παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις προφητῶν, Μωϋσέως καὶ τῶν μετ᾿ αὐτὸν ἢ καὶ πρὸ Μω(??)σέως, παραπίπτει ἑκὼν, ὡς οἶμαι τῷ μὴ δύνασθαι ἀπαντᾶν πρὸς λόγον ὡς οὐδὲ Ἰουδαῖοι οὐδ᾿ ὅσαι αἱρέσεις οὐ βούλονται πεπροφητεῦσθαι τὸν Ἰησοῦν. τάχα δὲ οὐδὲ ᾔδει τὰς περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ προφητείας· οὐκ ἂν γὰρ καταβαλὼν τὰ ὑπὸ Χριστιανῶν λεγόμενα, ὅτι πολλοὶ προφῆται προεῖπον περὶ τῆς τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐπιδημίας, περιέθηκε τῷ τοῦ Ἰουδαίου προσώπῳ ἃ ἥρμοζε Σαμαρεῖ μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν ἢ Σαδδουκαίῳ· καὶ οὐκ ἂν Ἰουδαῖος ὁ ἐν τῇ προσωποποΐᾳ ἔφασκεν· ἀλλ᾿ εἶπεν ἐμὸς προφήτης ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ποτὲ ὅτι ἥξει θεοῦ υἱὸς, τῶν ὁσίων κριτὴς καὶ τῶν ἀδίκων κολαστής. οὐ γὰρ εἷς προφήτης τὰ περὶ Χριστοῦ ἐπροφήτευσε· κἂν οἱ μόνου δὲ Μωϋσέως παραδεχόμενοι τὰς βίβλους Σαμαρεῖς ἢ Σαδδουκαῖοι φάσκωσιν ἐν ἐκείναις πεπροφητεῦσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν, ἀλλ᾿ οὔτι γε ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις, τοῖς μηδέπω ὀνομασθεῖσι κατὰ τὸν Μωϋσέως χρόνον, ἡ προφητεία λέλεκτο. εἴη τοίνυν πάντας τοὺς τοῦ λόγου κατηγόρους ἐν τοσαύτῃ εἶναι ἀγνοίᾳ οὐ μόνον τῶν πραγμάτων ἀλλὰ καὶ ψιλῶν τῶν γραμμάτων τῆς γραφῆς καὶ κατηγορεῖν χριστιανισμοῦ, ἵνα μηδὲ τὴν τυχοῦσαν πιθανότητα ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ἔχῃ, δυναμένην τοὺς ἀνερματίστους καὶ „πρὸς καιρὸν“ πιστεύοντας ἀφιστάνειν οὐ τῆς πίστεως ἀλλὰ τῆς ὀλιγοπιστίας. Ἰουδαῖος δὲ οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογήσαι ὅτι προφήτης τις εἶπεν ἥξειν θεοῦ υἱόν· ὃ γὰρ λέγουσιν, ἐστὶν ὅτι ἥξει ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. καὶ πολλάκις γε ζητοῦσι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εὐθέως περὶ υἱοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς οὐδενὸς ὄντος τοιούτου οὐδὲ προφητευθέντος. καὶ οὐ τοῦτό φαμεν, ὅτι οὐ προφητεύεται υἱὸς θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι οὐχ ἁρμοζόντως τῷ Ἰουδαϊκῷ προσώπῳ, μὴ ὁμολογοῦντι τὸ τοιοῦτο, περιέθηκε τὸ εἶπεν ἐμὸς προφήτης ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ποτὲ ὅτι ἥξει θεοῦ υἱός