There is not a consensus on its’ influecen on Christianity/Judaism, in part because many biblical scholars hold to outdated notions about Zoroastrianism, such as emphasizing the late date of manuscripts of the Avesta which has little to do with the date of oral composition of these liturgical texts (with the Avestan language dying out prior to Arsacid period, with it understood very imperfectly in the later Sasanian era). At the same time, few who would hold to positing influence would suggest that early Judaism imported many Zoroastrian concepts “in toto”. Jon D. Levenson in Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel (Yale, 2008) says that Zoroastrian theology “has obvious and striking connections with Jewish apocalyptic in general” and “probably influenced the development of apocalyptic in Jewish circles,” (pp. 215-216), but characterizes it as indirect and having a catalytic role on internal developments (pp. 216, 218). C. E. Elledge in Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism, 200 BCE-CE 200 (Oxford, 2017) discusses the evidence for Persian influence on the resurrection belief and finds that Jewish reception of Zoroastrianism was likely transformative, as “Persian influence may have made it plausible for Judaism to reinterpret the imagery of earlier prophetic texts in a more literalizing way,” with “some sectors within Jewish society were more (and less) susceptible to Persian influence than others” (pp. 52-53).
The influence was mediated by Hellenistic channels, as “it is within the Hellenistic era, not the Persian, that Jewish literature seems to preserve the closest putative correspondences with Zoroastrianism” (p. 53), with the sectarian literature at Qumran possibly evidencing direct borrowing of Zoroastrian ideas. I would say that biblical scholars are increasingly taking Zoroastrian influence seriously, compared to the pessimism of earlier decades. Some major works in this field include Jason M. Silverman’s Persepolis and Jerusalem: Iranian Influence on the Apocalyptic Hermeneutic (T&T Clark, 2012) and Vincente Dobroruka’s Persian Influence on Daniel and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Bloomsbury, 2022).
There is a legitimate dating question on the post-Avestan material written in Pahlavi which shows a much more elaborated eschatology than that found in the Avesta. It is difficult to know how much of this derives from expository texts in Middle Persian composed in the Achaemenid, Seleucid, and Arsacid periods, but there is evidence of an Avestan vorlage for the so-called Bahman Yašt (Zand i Wahman Yasn), or rather the lost work it is a commentary of, which would point to a much earlier date. It is in the latest layer in the Young Avesta where we find the first references to the resurrection and a few other apocalyptic concepts (Yt. 19.11-20, 19.89, Frag. Westergaard 4.3). We can also use allusions to Persian beliefs in Greek sources to also pin down the chronology. Theopompus and Eudemus of Rhodes in the fourth century BC attribute similar ideas to the Persian Magi, confirming that such ideas were in existence by then. Plutarch (first century CE), who was dependent on Theopompus, gives even more detailed information, and there is also the Oracles of Hystaspes (first century BCE or first century CE), the sole surviving Hellenistic Zoroastrian apocalypse (albeit in fragmentary form) which parallels certain details found in Pahlavi literature, particularly Bahman Yašt, which itself has oft-noted parallels with Daniel.
A few striking examples of possible direct influence come to mind. The demon Asmodeus in the apocryphal book of Tobit (third century BCE) is generally thought to be a borrowing from Avestan Aešma daeuua “(demon of) wrath”. The “bridge of the a[byss]” from 4Q521 (mentioned in relation to the accursed in contrast to those welcomed to heaven) potentially parallels the Kinvat Bridge in Zoroastrian eschatology (Y. 46:10–11, 51:13; Vendidad 19:29–36). The most obvious connection with the book of Daniel is the “four kingdom” schema which is found not only in later Pahlavi sources but earlier writings, such as material in the Sibylline Oracles likely dating to the third century BCE thought to derive from the Persian Sybil (cf. Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones, 1.6).
━━━━
Plutarch 📜
Plutarch was dependent on Theopompus who wrote in the fourth century BCE; he was familiar with genuine Avestan traditions since he quotes directly from Yt. 8.44. Pliny the Elder noted that Hermippus of Smyrna (third century BCE) catalogued some two million verses attributed to Zoroaster (Historia Naturalis 30.2.4). This raises the possibility that Avestan liturgies were translated into Greek (cf. Pausanias, Graecae Descriptio, 5.27.5-6) and were possibly supplemented with expository pseudepigrapha. The Avesta was not written down until rather late in the Sasanid period but the latest when material could have been composed was c. 300 BCE when Younger Avestan (YAv) became extinct as a living language. The Avesta is a compilation exhibiting several stages of the language, with the oldest layer (the Gathas composed in Old Avestan) preceding the YAv material (dated roughly to 900-600 BCE) by centuries. The latest compositions in the Avesta probably date to the Achaemenid period (600-300 BCE), and it is in this material where we find the first references to the resurrection and a few other apocalyptic concepts (Yt. 19.11-20, 19.89, Frag. Westergaard 4.3). Theopompus and Eudemus of Rhodes in the fourth century BC attribute similar ideas to the Persian Magi, confirming that such ideas were in existence by then. On the latter, see Albert de Jong’s Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature (Brill, 1997).
Taking this evidence together, notions of an individual bodily resurrection probably existed in Zoroastrianism before the fourth century BCE. This is earlier than the references to resurrection in 1 Enoch and Daniel. The primary dating uncertainty concerns the Pahlavi apocalyptic material (such as the Bahman Yašt and Bundahišn written from the 6th to the 9th centuries CE), which is post-Avestan and shows a much more elaborated eschatology. It is difficult to know how much of this derives from expository texts composed in the Seleucid and Arsacid periods (there is some evidence of an Avestan vorlage for Bahman Yašt, or rather the lost work it is a commentary of, which would point to an early date). Plutarch however is helpful in showing how apocalyptic ideas not found in the Avesta were already in existence; there is also the Oracles of Hystaspes, the sole surviving Hellenistic Zoroastrian apocalypse (albeit in fragmentary form) which parallels certain details found in Pahlavi literature, particularly Bahman Yašt, which itself has oft-noted parallels with Daniel. There was likely a flowering of Zoroastrian apocalypse in the Hellenistic period as a response to the Greek conquest; Jewish and Zoroastrian apocalyptic may have flourished in a shared Seleucid milieu. For more on this, see Jason M. Silverman’s Persepolis and Jerusalem: Iranian Influence on the Apocalyptic Hermeneutic (A&C Black, 2012), Vicente Dobroruka’s “Hesiodic reminiscences in Zoroastrian-Hellenistic apocalypses,” BOAS 2012, and coming out later this year is also Dobroruka’s Persian Influence on Daniel and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Bloomsbury, 2020).
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/podcast-ethnic-relations-migration-in-ancient-world/id266183212
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
What evidence exists for the proposed Zoroastrian influence on post-exilic Judaism and Christianity? 📜
Most books on Persian history and on Jewish apocalypticism (read anything by John J. Collins) should have some information. Gradually many of Zoroaster’s fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgement, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is ‘paradise’), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences – a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith.
Worship of the one Supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect which Zoroaster’s teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaemenian empire. —The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 3 (1), p. lxvi
The distinctive teaching [at Qumran] on two Spirits of Light and Darkness, however, is clearly derived from Zoroastrian dualism, although it is inevitably modified in its Jewish context. The Gathas, the oldest part of the Avesta, say that humanity has to choose between two spirits, one of whom is holy and the other a destroyer. “In the beginning those two Spirits who are the well-endowed twins were known as the one good and the other evil, in thought, word, and deed. Between them the wise chose rightly, not so the fools.” These two spirits were associated with light and darkness from an early time, as can be seen from a citation of Theopompus (about 300 B.C.E.) in Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris, 46-47. —John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, pp. 153-154
━━━━━━━━━━━
More 📜
Scholars say that there is enough evidence that it’s a strong possibility.. The argument it is just a coincidence ignores the fact that Jews and Christians did read Hellenistic Zoroastrian apocalyptic texts, such as the Persian Sibyl utilized in the Sibylline Oracles and the Oracles of Hystaspes which Justin Martyr and Lactantius referenced, and which is probably utilized as a source in Revelation (see David Aune’s WBC volume for more on this). The similarity is strongest in the complex of ideas pertaining to end-times eschatology: the appearance of an end-times Savior (Saoshyant), a final struggle between good and evil, a resurrection of the dead for judgment, then the Last Judgment occurs, the wicked and righteous are given different destinies, and the renovation of the world (Frašgird) occurs with the dissolution of all evil. Although this apocalyptic scenario is fully expressed in Pahlavi texts, we find it attested in the Younger Avesta (dating no later than c. 300 BCE) with Yt. 19 combining the resurrection with final judgment and the Renovation. Plutarch (De Iside, 47) on the authority of Theopompus (fourth century BCE) gives a brief summary of the final defeat of evil and the Renovation, with details paralleling the one Hellenistic Zoroastrian apocalypse we know about, the Oracles of Hystaspes (first century CE). There are specific details in Second Temple writings that betray a possible acquaintance with Zoroastrian concepts. The demon Asmodeus in the apocryphal book of Tobit (third century BCE) is generally thought to be a borrowing from Avestan Aešma daeuua “(demon of) wrath”. The “bridge of the a[byss]” from 4Q521 (mentioned in relation to the accursed in contrast to those welcomed to heaven) potentially parallels the Kinvat Bridge in Zoroastrian eschatology (Y. 46:10–11, 51:13; Vendidad 19:29–36).
The metal mountains in the Book of Parables of 1 Enoch may draw on Zoroastrian apocalyptic notions. The book of Daniel in particular has strong parallels to Zoroastrian material. Two major works on this topic are Jason M. Silverman’s Persepolis and Jerusalem: Iranian Influence on the Apocalyptic Hermeneutic (A&C Black, 2012) and Vicente Dobroruka’s forthcoming Persian Influence on Daniel and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Bloomsbury, 2021).
Early influence has been posited by various scholars on Deutero-Isaiah, the Priestly Code, Ezekiel, and Ezra-Nehemiah (cf. Mary Boyce’s A History of Zoroastrianism II, Under the Achaemenians, 1982, pp. 43-47; S. Shaked’s “Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century BCE to Second Century CE”, in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 1, pp. 308-325; Yishai Kiel’s “Zoroastrian and Hindu Connections in the Priestly Strata of the Pentateuch: The Case of Numbers 31:19-24”, VT 2013, and “Reinventing Mosaic Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah in the Light of the Law (dāta) of Ahura Mazda and Zarathustra”, JBL 2017). Jason Silverman in Persepolis and Jerusalem: Iranian Influence on the Apocalyptic Hermeneutic (A&C Black, 2012) also examines Ezekiel 37-39 (along with Hellenistic works such as Daniel and 1 Enoch), and suggests that the Median Empire may have also furnished Iranian influence during the exilic period.

However the genre of apocalyptic really came of age in the Hellenistic era and so influence may have been greater after the Achaemenids have left the scene. Silverman regards the Enochic corpus as “the most thoroughly ‘Iranicized’ of traditions within Second Temple Judaism” (p. 227). This may seem a little counterintuitive but Persian cultural influence did not cease with Alexander’s defeat of Darius III. The Seleucid empire that rose up administered Media, Persia, Babylonia, Syria, Lydia, and often Judea (which flipped back and forth between Seleucid and Lagid control until it achieved its own independence under the Hasmoneans) all the way until the 140s BCE when the Parthians took away much of this territory in the east. So Persia and Judea were part of the same kingdom for much of the time when apocalyptic began to flourish (with the Book of Watchers, Aramaic Levi, the Animal Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Weeks, and Daniel arising during the period).
There was an strong interest in Persian culture during the period, as Albert de Jong documents in his volume Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature (Brill, 1997). Treatises on Zoroastrian belief and practices were written by Xanthus of Lydia, Theopompus, Pseudo-Aristotle, Hermippus of Smyrna, Sotion, Hermadorus, Dino, Eudoxus, Hecataeus, and Clearchus of Soli. It was during the late Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods when pseudepigrapha attributed to Zoroaster made its appearance in the west. In particular, Hermippus of Smyrna (third century BCE) catalogued in his own works some two million verses composed by Zoroaster (Pliny, Historia Naturalis 30.2.4). This indicates a massive body of either genuine Avestan texts translated into Greek, or Greek pseudepigrapha inspired by Zoroastrian ideas, or probably a mixture of both. Pausanias also noted that in the second century BCE there were Zoroastrian temples in Lydia with written versions of the Magi liturgy (Graecae Descriptio, 5.27.5-6), suggesting that what remained only an oral text in Persia was committed to writing in the Hellenistic world. We know there must have been a written version of Avestan liturgies in Greek since Plutarch (citing Theopompus) quotes verbatim from Yt. 8.44. Within the Hellenistic sphere, Iranian apocalyptic had a sort of “countercultural” appeal with its prophesying of the demise of the current world empire (the flourishing of Iranian apocalyptic itself being a reaction to the loss of the empire). Even as late as the second century CE, the Oracles of Hystaspes was officially banned in the Roman empire but it proved to be very popular among Christians (Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 44.12).
So Zoroastrian influence was probably indirect and mediated through Hellenistic channels which combined Greek and Persian ideas together; in order words, Jewish apocalyptic and Zoroastrian apocalyptic both flourished in a shared Seleucid milieu (with influence continuing in the Arsacid period). Daniel, 1 Enoch, the Oracles of Hystaspes, and the Sibylline Oracles show a mixing of both Persian and Greek ideas. For more on this, see Bruce Lincoln’s ” ‘The Earth Becomes Flat’ — A Study of Apocalyptic Imagery” (CSSH 1983) and Vicente Dobroruka’s “Hesiodic reminiscences in Zoroastrian-Hellenistic apocalypses” (BOAS 2012).
━━━━━━━━
More on Judaism 📜
For OT connections, see: Joseph Blenkinsopp’s “The Cosmological and Protological Language of Deutero-lsaiah”, CBQ 2011; Tina D. Nilsen’s “Creation in Collision? Isaiah 40-48 and Zoroastrianism, Babylonian Religion and Genesis 1”, JHS 2013; Yishai Kiel’s “Zoroastrian and Hindu Connections in the Priestly Strata of the Pentateuch: The Case of Numbers 31:19-24”, VT 2013; Yishai Kiel’s “Reinventing Mosaic Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah in the Light of the Law (dāta) of Ahura Mazda and Zarathustra”, JBL, 2017. With respect to apocalyptic literature in particular, see: Bruce Lincoln (“‘The Earth Becomes Flat’ — A Study of Apocalyptic Imagery,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 1983), Mary Boyce (“On the Antiquity of Zoroastrian Apocalyptic,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1984), Albert de Jong (Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature, 1997), Alan Segal (Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion, 2004), Jason M. Silverman (Persepolis and Jerusalem: Iranian Influence on the Apocalyptic Hermeneutic, 2012), Vicente Dobroruka (“Hesiodic reminiscences in Zoroastrian-Hellenistic apocalypses,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 2012), C . D. Elledge (Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism, 200 BCE-CE 200, 2017), Almut Hintze (“Defeating Death: Eschatology in Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity”, in Irano-Judaica VII: Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts With Persian Culture Throughout the Ages, 2019), and Vincente Dobroruka (Persian Influence on Daniel and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2020).
For a general and broad introduction, I’d suggest to read first Yamauchi, E.M., Persia and the Bible, Baker Book House, 1990.
━━━━━━━━
Did Judaism get resurrection from Zoroastrianism? 📜
Bart Ehrman recently summarized some of the problems with the usual assumption that Judaism received these ideas from Zoroastrian religion: https://ehrmanblog.org/was-resurrection-a-zoroastrian-idea/
The Judeans were under Persian rule in the 6th-4th centuries BC. We don’t find talk of resurrection until more than a century after that (1 Enoch, Daniel, etc.). Why would the Persian influence on Jewish religion not show up until the later parts of the Greek period?

We don’t have reliable sources about what Zoroastrianism taught in the Persian, Greek, or early Roman periods of Judaism’s history anyway. The oldest copies of Zoroastrian texts only go as far back as the 9th century AD. The oldest portions of these texts don’t mention resurrection or a final judgment. (Jan Bremmer, The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife, 2002).

Concepts of resurrection and a final judgment may have developed within Judaism. (Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke’s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 2007).
According to An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity(Cambridge University Press, 2002) by Delbert Burkett, pp. 56-57:
Before the Babylonian captivity, ancient Israelites expected to experience a bleak existence after death in a gloomy, underground pit called “Sheol.” This was not a place of punishment, but simply a grave for all mortals. When the body entered the grave, whatever remained of human awareness went underground with it. The ancient Greeks had a similar underworld called “Hades.” For both cultures, any good that a person hoped to experience had to come before death – there would be none afterward.

After the Babylonian captivity, the Jews absorbed new ideas from the Persian religion Zoroastrianism. According to this religion, a god of good and a god of evil waged a cosmic battle in which humans took part by following one or the other. At some time in the future, the forces of good would defeat the forces of evil. Humans who had died would be resurrected – raised from the dead with their bodies restored. The good god would hold a final judgment, rewarding some in paradise and punishing others in hell. Afterwards all would be purified in fire and ultimately saved. God would create a new world without death in which all would live happily ever after. Many Jews in the Persian period adopted some form of this new conception.

When the Jews came under the dominion of the Greeks, their ideas underwent further developments. For one, Sheol came to be identified with Hades, which had become a place of reward and punishment for the soul. Souls could now undergo judgment immediately upon death, separated in different compartments of the underworld. This preliminary judgment did not necessarily rule out a later resurrection and final judgment.
Vicente Dobroruka, Jason M. Silverman, Almut Hintze, Yuhan Vevaina have all published in the last decade and posit some degree of Zoroastrian influence on Judaism and early Christianity, and there is much more consensus on the antiquity of Avestan texts (contra Bremmer on this point), see the work of Jean Kellens, Almut Hintze, Alberto Cantera, Antonio Panaino, P.O. Skjærvø, Michiel de Vaan, among others. One important point is that hardly anyone thinks that there was “in toto” borrowing but rather indirect influence on intra-Jewish developments. Jon D. Levenson in Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel (Yale, 2008) says that Zoroastrian theology “has obvious and striking connections with Jewish apocalyptic in general” and “probably influenced the development of apocalyptic in Jewish circles,” (pp. 215-216), but characterizes it as indirect and having a catalytic role on internal developments (pp. 216, 218). C. E. Elledge in Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism, 200 BCE-CE 200 (Oxford, 2017) discusses the evidence for Persian influence on the resurrection belief and finds that Jewish reception of Zoroastrianism was likely transformative, as “Persian influence may have made it plausible for Judaism to reinterpret the imagery of earlier prophetic texts in a more literalizing way,” with “some sectors within Jewish society were more (and less) susceptible to Persian influence than others” (pp. 52-53). The influence was mediated by Hellenistic channels, as “it is within the Hellenistic era, not the Persian, that Jewish literature seems to preserve the closest putative correspondences with Zoroastrianism” (p. 53), with the sectarian literature at Qumran possibly evidencing direct borrowing of Zoroastrian ideas. Another scholar working on this topic, Antonio Panaino, characterizes Zoroastrian influence on Judaism in this way:
“Rather than deciding between interreligious impact or isolated development within a religious structure, we should consider a kind of evolution of ideas within a particular community’s consciousness which also takes up, or at least is stimulated by, compatible elements from other communities which are both physically and in consciousness in close proximity” (“Trends and problems concerning mutual relations between Iranian pre-Islamic and Jewish cultures,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project, 2004, pp. 220-221).