[Alamo-Girl]

Sure, you can buy a copy of Charlesworth's "Pseudepigrapha" on this Amazon link.

But it is pricey.

You might be able to find it in a public library. But it is not on the internet. Moreover, the translations of Enoch available on the internet are quite old, inferior and do not have the scholarly commentary to put things in perspective.

[Quix]

Ahhhh. Thanks.

[RegulatorCountry]

In what ways are the original 1821 Laurence translation inferior?

This translation of the Ethiopic Book of Enoch varies significantly from the scrolls only in organizational structure, with an attempt at making it into a “pentateuch” ... tetrateuch, honestly. There is some evidence in certain fragments of translation from Greek rather than the original Aramaic, or Hebrew in the instance of the Noah traditions. I've seen no indications that the translation itself is in any way faulty.

The Slavonic is far more sketchy. There is even a purported 3 Enoch. There are those who claim that the entire New Testament has its ultimate foundation in Enochian themes and thought.

Outside of the commentary, dating analysis and the actual, physical authentication provided by the Dead Sea Scroll fragments that are themselves analyzed, I just don't see any outstanding difference, myself.

Here is a link with several knowledgeable individuals, including Charlesworth, discussing 1 Enoch and other writings, that may be of interest:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/1enoch.html