Another question is to what degree can we be certain that Origen is providing us with the right information. For instance, it doesn't make any sense that the Creator would be called 'the accursed divinity' given the fact that he curses rather than is accursed in all the evidence directly cited from Celsus. For example we read:
In the next place, he determines even the number mentioned by those who deliver over the seal, as that "of seven angels, who attach themselves to both sides of the soul of the dying body; the one party being named angels of light, the others 'archontics;' " and he asserts that the "ruler of those named 'archontics' is termed the 'accursed' god."
Εἶτα καὶ ἀριθμὸν ὁρίζει λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν παραδιδόντων τὴν σφραγῖδα ἀγγέλων ἑπτά, ἑκατέρωθεν τῇ ψυχῇ τοῦ ἀπαλλαττομένου σώματος ἐφισταμένων, τῶν μὲν τοῦ φωτὸς ἑτέρων δὲ τῶν ὀνομαζομένων ἀρχοντικῶν, καὶ λέγει τὸν ἄρχοντα τῶν ὀνομαζομένων ἀρχοντικῶν λέγεσθαι θεὸν κατηραμένον.
So it would appear that in this passage - which is paraphrased rather than directly citing Celsus (which is always dangerous) - that there are two classes of angels, the dark angels belong to 'the accursed divinity.'
Origen follows this up by
Then, laying hold of the expression, he assails, not without reason; those who venture to use such language; and on that account we entertain a similar feeling of indignation with those who censure such individuals, if indeed there exist any who call the God of the Jews--who sends rain and thunder, and who is the Creator of this world, and the God of Moses, and of the cosmogony which he records--an "accursed" divinity. Celsus, however, appears to have had in view in employing these expressions, not a rational object, but one of a most irrational kind, arising out of his hatred towards us, which is so unlike a philosopher. For his aim was, that those who are unacquainted with our customs should, on perusing his treatise, at once assail us as if we called the noble Creator of this world an "accursed divinity."
Again I don't see any direct connection to the god of the Jews. This is followed by:
With some such object as this in view does Celsus seem to have been actuated, when he alleged that Christians term the Creator an "accursed divinity (κατηραμένον θεὸν τὸν δημιουργόν)" in order that he who believes these charges of his against us, should, if possible, arise and exterminate the Christians as the most impious Of mankind (τὸ αἱρεῖν ὁρμήσαι Χριστιανοὺς ὡς πάντων ἀσεβεστάτους). Confusing, moreover, things that are distinct (Φύρων δὲ τὰ πράγματα καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ἐκτίθεται), he states also the reason why the God of the Mosaic cosmogony is termed "accursed," asserting that "such is his character, and worthy of execration in the opinion of those who so regard him, inasmuch as he pronounced a curse upon the serpent, who introduced the first human beings to the knowledge of good and evil."
Τοιοῦτόν τι δή μοι φαίνεται ὁ Κέλσος οἰκονομῶν ἐκτεθεῖσθαι, ὡς ἄρα Χριστιανοὶ λέγουσι κατηραμένον θεὸν τὸν δημιουργόν, ἵν' ὁ πιστεύων αὐτῷ ταῦτα καθ' ἡμῶν λέγοντι εἰ δυνατὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ αἱρεῖν ὁρμήσαι Χριστιανοὺς ὡς πάντων ἀσεβεστάτους. Φύρων δὲ τὰ πράγματα καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ἐκτίθεται τοῦ κατηραμένον λέγεσθαι τὸν τῆς κατὰ Μωϋσέα κοσμοποιΐας θεὸν φάσκων ὅτι τοιοῦτός ἐστιν καὶ ἀρᾶς ἄξιος κατὰ τοὺς ταῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ δοξάζοντας, ἐπείπερ τῷ ὄφει, γνῶσιν καλοῦ καὶ κακοῦ τοῖς πρώτοις ἀνθρώποις εἰσηγου μένῳ, κατηράσατο.
Now let's stop it right there. Φύρων δὲ τὰ πράγματα καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ἐκτίθεται clearly means that at the core level of Origen's original analysis, the Church Father originally said Celsus 'mixes' Φύρων things up. Indeed Eusebius may have added another layer on top of this text, but at its core Origen tells us Celsus got his facts wrong.
To me at least the Demiurge should be called the 'cursing divinity' and the serpent the 'accursed divinity.' Note that again Origen references Celsus's 'mix up' a little later in the same discussion:
And it is from misunderstanding, I think, some pestilent heresy which gave an erroneous interpretation to the words, "Let there be light," as if they were the expression of a wish merely on the part of the Creator, that Celsus made the remark: "The Creator did not borrow light from above, like those persons who kindle their lamps at those of their neighbours." Misunderstanding, moreover, another impious heresy, he has said: "If, indeed, there did exist an accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his approval, why did he lend him the light?"
Celsus is not trying to achieve clarity but rather simply present Christianity as a jumbled mess of opinions as we see in the next chapter:
"Why does he send secretly, and destroy the works which he has created? Why does he secretly employ force, and persuasion, and deceit? Why does he allure those who, as ye assert, have been condemned or accused by him, and carry them away like a slave-dealer? Why does he teach them to steal away from their Lord? Why to flee from their father? Why does he claim them for himself against the father's will? Why does he profess to be the father of strange children?"
Note at once that Celsus flips from 'Demiurge' to 'other god' of the Marcionites mixing things up so as to make the whole thing ridiculous. But do I think the Christians may have celebrity the serpent? Perhaps. But it should also be evident that Celsus is 'mixed' up or mixing up his evidence - perhaps on purpose, making the exact beliefs of contemporary Christians unclear to us.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote