Like in global warming (ducking).
In chapter 62, the phrase “For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning, and the Most High One preserved him in the presence of his power; then he revealed him to the holy and the elect ones” sounds descriptive of Jesus Christ per se - as compared to how He will appear in the end times. IOW, that the mystery of Christ was unknown - in particular to the Jews - until He was enfleshed and then they still didn’t recognize Him. Indeed, only those with ‘ears to hear’ (the elect) can hear him (John 8, 10 et al)
To me, context is significant. 1 Enoch 62 passage context is the final judgement at the end of time if you read further down. This you compared to the messianic secret elements of the gospels. However, Paul writes this even within the 2 Cor quotation (as well as the gospels ) about the revelation of Christ, which speaks contrary to the Enoch passage.
IOW, that the mystery of Christ was unknown - in particular to the Jews - until He was enfleshed and then they still didn’t recognize Him. Indeed, only those with ‘ears to hear’ (the elect) can hear him (John 8, 10 et al)
Again, the context of the Enoch 62 is that of an end time judgement - not the first advent. The aspects described above are parallel only at a stretch and I don't find the comparison especially convincing.
The book was cherished by the earliest Christians. Charlesworth’s Pseudepigrapha sums it up this way:
While I won't deny that 1 Enoch was cited by the early church and shows up in Christian as well as Jewish pseudographic works, he is not totally unbiased in his selection of those supporting it. For instance while Origen initially was supportive of 1 Enoch, he later is on record as doubting its authority. Infact, Origen went as far as to say that the churches do not recognize Enoch as divine.
The document The “Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis” is helpful in identifying which books were considered apocryphal and subject to elimination, like Enoch. The document itself is traditionally attributed to Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE and contains parts which are traced back to Damasus. The document evidently was put together sometime in the 6th century.
A document listing the canon as we know it is by Athanasius (about 376AD). FF Bruce does a good job tracing the development of the listing from church leader to church leader.
It is tragic that the Catholic Church did not preserve Enoch like it did other apocryphal books. And it raises the question, what else was "burned?" Book burning leaves the argument “the Church always everywhere believed thus and so” empty.
I am aware book burnings - but these were associated to the persecution phase of the Roman empire. Secondly, as far as categorizing Enoch, it was understood from pre-Christian period to be pseudographic, and not apocryphal - these are two different technical terms that are commonly mingled together.
Of a truth, though, I feel like I'm sitting squarely in the center of a teeter-totter. One side is putting far more emphasis on Enoch than I am comfortable with - and the other side, far too little. LOLOL!
But it's been fun. Thank you both!