In “Persia and the Bible”, by Edwin Yamauchi from Baker House, Yamauchi seems to think Judaism was possibly influential on Zoroastrian religion in the direction of monotheism. But Zoroastrianism seems to have been more of a dualistic polytheism that gradually, perhaps over an extremely long time, if traditional views of Zoroaster living in the Bronze age are true, (as Mary Boyce suggests), became simplified into Ahura Mazda, (the wise lord), and Angra Mainyu, (the evil thought), assisted by a variety of angelic ahuras and demonic daevas. This general picture seems to have become widespread during the 2nd Temple period after Jewish exiles were returned, by Cyrus (a Zoroastrian), from Babylon, and appears to have influenced writings like Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and early Christian apocalyptic writing, as well. In Manichaeism, a Persian 3rd Century syncretic, gnostic religion, dualism even more strongly influenced Christianity through Augustine. Even though St. Augustine eventually rejected his early Manichaeism, aspects of the religion have remained with us ever since.
Yamauchi assigns a very late date to Zarathustra, the traditional seventh and sixth century BCE dating which rests on certain classical sources. This old view has now generally been abandoned. The Gathas are now assigned to the late second millennium BCE, largely on linguistic evidence, with Old Avestan showing a similar distance from Proto-Indo-Iranian as Sanskrit (preserving some features lost in all other Indo-European languages by the first millennium BCE). Old Persian and Younger Avestan would then be contemporaneous languages. The Gathas were already part of the cultural heritage of the Medes and Persians by the sixth century BCE, as seen in the use of bag (a neologism from a word meaning “allot”) for the concept of “god”, indicating an avoidance of devas found in Zoroastrianism (with deva having a derogatory meaning in all Iranian languages). Also the names of Achaemenid personages such as Darius and Artaxerxes allude to sayings from the Gathas (with Darius even using an Avestan word for “good” instead of Old Persian). Moreover there are traces of Old Persian pronunciations in the Younger Avestan material so these constitute evidence that the YAv was recited in Persia during the Achaemenid period.
What probably gave rise to the late dating of Zoroaster is the probability that YAv did not spread to western Iran until the seventh or sixth centuries BCE. The Younger Avesta likely originated c. 900-600 BCE in eastern Iran, in the area around Sistan, and did not penetrate the west until later (Avestan itself is an eastern language, the YAv material shows only knowledge of geographical locations in the east and has no inkling of the situation in Persia). The spread of this new teaching of Zoroaster in the time of Cyaxares and Cyrus may have thus given rise to the belief that Zoroaster himself was a contemporary of these figures. Cyrus and Cambyses, by the way, were probably Elamite and not Persian (as Cyrus styled himself as the “king of Anshan”), and so many contemporary scholars regard the Teispids as distinct from the Achaemenids (Darius himself was a usurper) and thus were culturally closer to the Babylonians, with Cyrus portraying himself as a servant of Marduk. A decent overview of the topic is found in Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism, 200 BCE-CE 200(Oxford University Press, 2017), Casey Deryl Elledge, From the book:
In the crucial centuries in which resurrection emerged, both Zoroastrianism and Judaism were, in a sense, “Hellenistic” religions. Martin Hengel, therefore, advises that any possible Iranian influence upon Judaism must have been further mediated through a Hellenized synthesis. Herodotus, Theopompus, Hermippus, Strabo, Plutarch, and Diogenes Laertius illustrate that the Greeks (and Romans) were themselves far more interested in Persian religion than comparable Jewish sources. Judaism could conceivably have had access throughout the ancient world to various interpretations of “Persian” wisdom that were mediated through Hellenism. Through Hermippus of Smyrna, for example, Greek and Latin authors claim to have had access to actual Zoroastrian literature. Pliny the Elder comments that Hermippus had made accessible “by the indices prefaced to his volumes the two million verses composed by Zoroaster” (Nat. Hist. 30:2.4). Such references likely refer to extensive “Zoroastrian” compositions, whose contents represent either a Hellenized form of the wisdom of genuine Persian Magi 22 or, to the contrary, entirely Greek literary projections.

Theopompus, in particular, became a frequently cited Greek authority on Zoroastrian eschatology. While Plutarch does not directly mention resurrection in his reliance on Theopompus, he does report at least one suggestive detail as to the kind of embodied existence that humans will enjoy. After Ahura Mazda’s triumph “Hades shall pass away, humans shall be happy; neither shall they have need of food, nor shall they cast a shadow” (Isis and Osiris 47c). In the interpretation of Albert de Jong, the passage may refer to a spiritual resurrection, as opposed to a resurrection in a material body.24 Or one might at least conclude that life will be lived out in a new and transcendent form of embodiment in a world where death has permanently ceased.
— Diogenes Laertius attributes to Theopompus a more explicit report on resurrection: “According to the Magi men shall come to life again and be immortal…” (Lives 1:9);26 and he further attributes a similar testimony to Eudemus of Rhodes (fourth century BCE).27 The later neo-Platonist author Aeneas of Gaza attributes to Theopompus the claim that “Zoroaster predicts that there will be a time in which there will be a resurrection of all the dead.”28 It is possible that these authors reinterpret Theopompus. Surviving details in Theopompus’ testimonies have also been criticized as misunderstandings of Zoroastrianism. Nevertheless, the testimonies of Theopompus anchor the belief in revivification into an everlasting life to the latter half of the fourth century BCE.
This antedates the flourishing of literal conceptions of resurrection in Judaism during the Hellenistic era…

Thus, even scholars such as Boyce, who strongly assert Zoroastrian influence, are inevitably struck by the extent to which Jews reinterpreted and developed very different conceptions than those expressed in classic Zoroastrian sources. This feature of Jewish adaptation illustrates the difficulties involved in citing “direct” influences, even in the favorable comparisons provided by the Messianic Apocalypse and the Fourth Sibylline Oracle. The same Jewish authors who actively reinterpreted earlier “scriptural” traditions in this era apparently did the same with any putative “foreign” influences. The Hellenization of Zoroastrian traditions may also have distorted any presumed Jewish reception of their eschatology. If Judaism reinterpreted Zoroastrian contributions, it probably did so in dialogue with other kinds of non-Zoroastrian traditions, as the Fourth Sibylline Oracle may illustrate in its possible confluence of Jewish, Persian, and Stoic conceptions. Moreover, as Alan Segal explains, any reception of Zoroastrian thought in Judaism was also partially fragmented among different social groups. As resurrection flourished among millenarian groups and the Pharisees, Greek influence inspired the hope in the immortality of the soul among some within the aristocracy and Hellenized Jewry. Thus, some sectors within Jewish society were more (and less) susceptible to Persian influence than others.
Rather than seeking a “direct” influence, it seems more useful to consider the larger contextual features of encounter between Zoroastrian eschatology and early Jewish thought. James Barr, for example, counsels that both Jews and Zoroastrians participated in the larger “oriental reaction against Greek cultural expansionism” during the crucial centuries in which resurrection emerged. In the interpretation of Barr, “it may have been as part of this oriental anti Hellenistic reaction that the Jews came—if they did—to find Iranian conceptions useful for the expression of their own religion.” Indeed, it is within the Hellenistic era, not the Persian, that Jewish literature seems to preserve the closest putative correspondences with Zoroastrianism. This more contextual model proposes a dynamic within which Judaism defined itself in relation to the new Hellenistic power by reinterpreting its own traditions in correspondence with those of other “oriental” cults, perhaps including Zoroastrianism. Within this complex environment, the reinterpretation of earlier traditions (like Isa. 24-27, 65-66; Ezek. 37) in the Hellenistic era now takes on the vitality of literal human revivification, as already present in the much celebrated Zoroastrian eschatology. In this sense, Persian influence may have made it plausible for Judaism to reinterpret the imagery of earlier prophetic texts in a more literalizing way, even as the Hellenistic empire made it imperative to do so.
John Granger Cook also touches on the subject of Zoroastrian influence in his book Empty Tomb, Apotheosis, Resurrection(Mohr Siebeck, 2018):
A short discussion of the origins of the most ancient belief in resurrection is appropriate. Theopompus (fourth century B.C.E.) wrote in the eighth book of his Philippica that the “Magi believe people will live again and be immortal and that all that exists will endure by their invocations.” The Avestan hymns of praise to various deities, the Yashts, support the claim Theopompus and almost surely date before the time of the Achaemenids (VI-IV B.C.E). Jan N. Bremmer dates Yacht 19 to the time of the Achaemenids and notes that it was in the Saassanian period that resurrection became a major theme. This dating may need some revision. Albert de Jong makes a good case for the Achaemenid kings’ role in the development of Zoroastrianism. He concedes that there is no doubt that the Avesta contains texts that are much older than the Achaemenid period… Yasht 19.11, for example, is clear: “In order for (His creatures and creations) to make existence brilliant,/ not aging, imperishable,/ not rotting, not putrefying,/ enjoying eternal life, enjoying eternal benefit, enjoying power at will,/so that the dead will rise again,/ imperishability will come over the living,/ (and) existence will be made brilliant in value.”
The Avestan text is part of a recitation which the Saoshyant and his helpers use to “revivify the bodies of the dead and reunite them with their souls at the end of time.”…Although the body will be recreated and united with the soul, the emphasis on the raising of the dead implies that humans “will regain their disarticulated bodies at the end of time and be resurrected”. Vevaina concludes, “…the existence of two independent Young Avestan references to the resurrection, both of them in genuinely old texts found in different manuscript groups…strongly suggests that the notion of the resurrection was an integral part of the ancient Zoroastrian eschatological myth that was existence in the fist millenium B.C.E., if not earlier.”

Although it is intriguing that references to resurrection in ancient Judaism emerge during the Achaemenid period, proving or disproving intercultural influences between Persia and Israel is unnecessary for the purposes of this monograph. In my view one should credit the Zoroastrians with the initial development of the concept of an eschatological resurrection.
Here are some references you may find useful: Bruce Lincoln (” ‘The Earth Becomes Flat’ — A Study of Apocalyptic Imagery,” CSSH 1983), Mary Boyce (“On the Antiquity of Zoroastrian Apocalyptic,” BOAS 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), Yuhan Vevaina (“Resurrecting the resurrection: Eschatology and exegesis in Late Antique Zoroastrianism,” BOAI, 2009), Jason M. Silverman (Persepolis and Jerusalem: Iranian Influence on the Apocalyptic Hermeneutic, 2012), Vicente Dobroruka (“Hesiodic reminiscences in Zoroastrian-Hellenistic apocalypses,” BOAS 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). Works coming soon on this subject include Jan Age Sigvartsen (Afterlife and Resurrection Beliefs in the Apocrypha and Apocalyptic Literature, 2019) and Vincente Dobroruka (Persian Influence on Daniel and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2020).
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). Thus it often isn’t a case of direct borrowing but rather a convergence with developments already occurring in Judaism.