Indeed, there is only one way Enoch could be authentic and that would be if it were originally written by Enoch who was the uncontested grandfather of Noah. The language of such writings in 3300 B.C. may be lost to us or may simply remain undiscovered. Perhaps we will find a Rosetta stone in Iraq.
The scholars always take the scientific materialism approach to ancient manuscripts. Which is to say that they do not consider prophesy real. Hence the statement in the above Meridian article:
Since we know that the Enochs at Qumran are copies, and they carbon-date as far back as 186 B.C. - and there exist no older copies from which to work --- the next logical step in further determining whether 1 Enoch could be authentic is to look at the text.
Most of Enoch is like Revelation, speaking in parables and metaphors of future events and supernatural worlds. But Enoch is unique in that it does have the book of astronomy which may allow us to surmise for our own satisfaction whether the author had knowledge which he could not have possessed even at 200 B.C. by any means other than Spiritual revelation.
For Lurkers:
In reading the book of astronomy, I noted several passages which indicated such knowledge and thus I am looking for any other possible explanation:
2. That the sun and the moon both orbit.
3. That the sun and the moon generate energy.
4. That the sun shines even when it is not seen.
5. That stars come into existence and die by becoming lightening (supernovae).
6. That the end (or beginning?) of all the heavens is a pit of no measure and no content. (singularity?)
Given the ferment of Greek philosophy, it's at least a possibility. But before Noah ... that's challenging. We need some early-dated manuscripts. At least I do before I could take this as a serious possibility.