I think there came a time in Jewish history from 300 AD onwards spreading into Christian history when it was fashionable to deny the existence of gods apart from God. The Book of Enoch didn’t fit that narrative. Actually neither did other scriptures but translation tricks could hide this. The tricks would not work on the Book of Enoch, so it got suppressed. The Jews after destruction of the Temple took a new stance on monotheism, but not monotheism where God is king above all gods and where Elijah was answered by fire while prophets of Baal were ignored, no a different definition of monotheism where gods did not even exist. A false monotheism. I could understand it that the destruction of the Temple weakened the original case for monotheism where gods failed to deliver from God’s hand, because it must have seemed like now God had failed to deliver from the hands of those who worshipped those other lesser gods, so maybe, I expect they felt pressure to say, God was the lesser god. The salvage operation might have been a plan B outright denial of other gods existing: Playing a patriotism card requiring patriots to join in by denying gods even exist, besides God. That would make sense. In which case the Book of Enoch might have been collateral damage in fallout from destruction of the Temple and destruction of the argument of Moses and Elijah. If God could not be regarded as Most High god, they would insist God is the only god. This persists in Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and Jewish faiths, even in Islam. The result would be to argue with Hindus by saying that their gods do not exist. The real truth, however, is still that the resurrection of Jesus Christ proves that God is the Most High, king above all gods, and that the gods cannot elevate us like God can elevate and perfect us now that Christ has died for us and risen. It is not a denial of the existence of other gods.
