There is still one thing gnawing at me however...and I am certain you know the answer.
Why were the rabbis like Nachmanides, Rashi, and Rashbi (Simeon ben Jochai of the "curse") against Enoch? Was it the mention of The Elect One or the talk of Fallen Angels, etc. or both or even something else?
By the way, Bible scholars work on the presumption that prophesy cannot occur. Thus when they find a reference to a verifiable bit of history, they date the manuscript after that date.
They did that with the book of Enoch which they presumed was written after Herod because it evidently referred to him and more importantly, to Jesus Christ. The view is clear in Laurence's translation.
Then they found Enoch in the Dead Sea Scrolls and - lo and behold - fragments of copies of the book carbon-dated as far back as 200 B.C. (No telling how old the original was.)
In sum, Enoch has been inconvenient to many and for different reasons.
Although it is quoted directly and indirectly in the New Testament, which would normally result in a book being added to the canon, the Church found the apocalyptic references intolerable at the time.
To the Jews, even though Enoch was in wide currency before Christ was enfleshed, to continue to embrace the manuscript would require accepting Christ as the Messiah which would disagree with what the sages believed the Messiah should be like.
To the Bible scholars of the present age, the book makes their secular approach to ancient manuscripts - as if they wanted to be seen as scientists, methodological naturalists - foolish.