There's a good reason why the Book of Enoch is part of the pseudogrippia.
A compilation of apocryphal literature, the oldest element, the 'Apocalypse of Weeks' is dated just prior to the Maccabean uprising of 167BC.
Other sections are harder to date. Views on messianism, celibacy, and the soul may have originated with or been influenced by the Essenes at Qumran, where text fragments have been discovered. No part of the longest portion of the work (chapters 37–71) have been found at Qumran, and scholars theorise this was perhaps written in the 2nd century AD by a Jewish Christian who wished to imbue his own eschatological speculations with the authority of Enoch, and added his work to four older apocryphal Enoch writings.
Enoch was the subject of abundant apocryphal literature during the Hellenistic period of Judaism (300BC-300AD).
This portrait of Enoch as visionary was influenced by the Babylonian tradition of the 7th antediluvian king, Enmenduranna, who was linked to the sun god and received divine revelations. The story of Enoch reflects many such features of the Babylonian myth.
Widely known, Enoch was nevertheless excluded from the Hebrew canon. Several early sections of the book use material from the Torah – 1 En 1 is a midrash (gloss) of Deuteronomy 33. Trypho the Jew, debating with Justin Martyr on a reference to Enoch said: "The utterances of God are holy, but your expositions are mere contrivances, as is plain from what has been explained by you; nay, even blasphemies, for you assert that angels sinned and revolted from God." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue 79,
Dialogue with Trypho.) The Jews rejected to Enochian notion of fallen angels and a revolt against God.
The Ethiopian Haymanot Jews is the only Jewish group that accepts the Book of Enoch as canonical and preserves it's language of Ge'ez as liturgical, although the evidence is that is was written in a mix of Aramaic and Hebrew writings and later in Greek.
This, too, might be evidence of Babylonian influence.
This is typical of the Enochian corpus, in that interior processes are revisioned as beings and entities in their own right. This is all part of the dialogue between Hebrew and Hellenic mystical speculation in the Second Temple period, when Enoch was compiled and composed.
Yes.
This from
De-Demonising the Old Testament (Judit Blair. p66-67):
"The significance of Azazel is not who he is but what he symbolises. In many ways his role is the opposite of Yahweh’s. Like Yahweh, he is a deity, though it is made clear that he does not possess the same power. Yahweh receives sacrifice, Azazel’s goat is not a sacrifice; Yahweh dwells in the very centre, the Holy of Holies, Azazel’s place is on the outside, the desert; Yahweh’s dwelling place is pure, the desert is where all impurities can be found; worshipping Yahweh brings life to his people, following other gods brings death to them. Yahweh establishes order, Azazel is the bringer of chaos.
The analysis of Leviticus 16 (the only direct mention in Scripture of Azazel) leads to the following conclusions ... The live goat (scapegoat) removes their sin and guilt by literally taking it outside of the community, into the desert, away from the sanctuary. The sanctuary represents the presence of Yahweh, the order of creation, while the desert where azazel is found, stands for the chaos that threatens it.
While later texts speak of a proper name of a supernatural being whose place is in the desert, there is nothing to suggest that it would refer to a ‘demon’ named Azazel. Despite the various efforts of scholars to prove otherwise, there is no evidence that a mythological figure was behind this term. Azazel’s significance in Lev 16 is its symbolic function. Its role is to stand in contrast to Yahweh and as such it could be argued that it is a personification of the forces of chaos that threaten the order of creation."
This personification of psychospiritual dynamic forces, along with the personification of interior spiritual processes, is everywhere evident in the Enochian writings, and in the heterodox literature of the Second Temple period.
Exactly. The above paper shows how a personal name is a stretch ...
For good reasons.
Because they are later era, although possibly containing early strands of heterodox magic and mystical ritual, but mostly because they are derivative and without foundation.
Well the cleaning ritual of Leviticus 16 is, but to ascribe a whole personality and identity and function to Azazel, especially that of a superior angel, is clearly not.
www.interfaith.org