Umm, you do realize that:
1) Jews do not count Enoch in the Tanakh
2) It is an aprocrapil work - authorship is uncertain
3) Was not written in Hebrew as were the other books of Tanakh
And for those reasons was not included in the canon by the early fathers.
>> 1) Jews do not count Enoch in the Tanakh <<
Yes, I realize that. And even if I cared — which I don’t, because they rejected several books on the grounds that they pointed to an imminent Messiah — I ALSO NOTED that Enoch is not canonical to Catholics (like me), Protestants, or most Orthodox. So what’s your point?
>> 2) It is an aprocrapil work - authorship is uncertain <<
Well, St. Jude seems to have regarded some portion of it as authentic, although AS I NOTED, we don’t know how much of the work we currently have would have been recognized by St. Jude.
>> 3) Was not written in Hebrew as were the other books of Tanakh <<
What we have was written in Ge’ez. Presumably, that’s a translation, since St. Jude probably wouldn’t be citing anything written in Ge’ez.
>> And for those reasons was not included in the canon by the early fathers. <<
Yup. I could mention several other reasons if I though them relevant. What’s interesting is that St. Jude cites a work which plainly wasn’t canonical. Kinda shoots that whole notion of sola scriptura down in a fiery crash.
The only parts of Daniel that were written in Hebrew were those addressed to the descendants of Abraham—Chapters 7, 9, 10, etc.
And what language was the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Enoch written in?