>>856869
>How do you categorize the importance of the book of Enoch?
It is an apocryphal book that was likely written in late antiquity or thereabouts. It probably has multiple versions floating around, some or all of them being modified later. As far as the general content of the book goes, it contradicts numerous parts of the Bible, insomuch that both cannot be true at the same time. Its influence was primarily on gnostic sects in the early church era, so not strictly Christians, but merely offshoot sects that borrowed some ideas from Christianity. But scholarship today would have trouble distinguishing the two, and this is perhaps intentional. For this reason you might see nonchristian modern scholarship classing it as a "Christian influence," because those modern scholars are generally against the gospel and this is another way for modern scholars to cause confusion and just to generally confuse people about it who might not know any better.
>It was very influential in early Christian believers
The gnostic sect of the Manichaeans (founded around 240 AD) originally had a book called the "book of Giants," which was based on this, and this second book also had an influence on the Babylonian Talmud, which was written in the early middle ages (finished around 499 AD) and formed the basis of what we know as Judaism.
However, despite the above, the book did not have a proper or formal influence on the church of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the church was determined by the Bible, which is inspired and God's word according to them, and contrarily not by any apocryphal works which are not considered inspired by God.
>Enoch is mentioned in Genesis
This is true, but if some random person wrote a book claiming to be from Enoch, how much should anyone be so easy to believe it? Many writings claim a false origin.