Short answer. Probably not by direct copying (and you cannot prove borrowing from the evidence we have) but the resemblance is real, deep, and structural. After two centuries under Persian rule, a cluster of ideas largely absent from the older Hebrew scriptures appears and hardens in Judaism, and then in Christianity: a personal cosmic Adversary, ranks of named angels, the bodily resurrection of the dead, a final judgment, heaven and hell, and a world-saving figure at the end of time. The one older faith already built on exactly those elements was the religion of Zarathustra. The honest verdict is resonance you can lean on, not influence you can bank.
Why you can't simply say "they copied it"
The Zoroastrian scriptures come in two layers. The oldest (the Gathas ascribed to Zarathustra) are linguistically ancient but theologically spare: the Truth-against-the-Lie ethic (Asha against Druj) and the two opposed Spirits, but not the elaborated angelology, the detailed resurrection, or the full end-times architecture. All of that (the systematic version everyone wants to line up against the Bible) survives only in much later books (the Younger Avesta and the Pahlavi texts), preserved in manuscripts copied around the 9th century after Christ. To argue from a manuscript written about 900 CE back to the contents of a religion as it stood around 500 BCE, and then to claim it predates a Jewish text written in between, is a 1,400-year reach. Edwin Yamauchi (Persia and the Bible, 1990) built the standard conservative challenge on exactly this gap, and the methodological cudgel is Samuel Sandmel's "parallelomania" (JBL, 1962), the case James Barr pressed for the Persian question (JAAR, 1985): a parallel is not a borrowing, and most such arguments quietly assume the very direction they set out to prove.
So the direct causal chain (Persian doctrine in, Jewish doctrine out) is unverifiable. That concession is not a weakness to bury; it is the load-bearing honesty of the whole case.
What is still standing
Watch how much survives the concession. The firmest single piece of evidence for real contact is internal to Judaism's own writings: the Two Spirits doctrine in the Qumran Community Rule (1QS III-IV), a sharply dualistic vision of a Spirit of Truth and a Spirit of Deceit contending in every human heart until the appointed end. It is about as close to a Zoroastrian template as a Jewish text can come, and it is securely pre-Christian. Even cautious scholars grant the point; the dualism is real, and it is old.
One honest distinction matters here. What the Two Spirits secures is the dualism. It does not, by itself, secure the restorative, universal end (the Zoroastrian Frashokereti, in which even the wicked are at last purified and brought home), the Community Rule's own eschatology is in fact punitive. So the dualism is record; the restorative horizon is resonance, held more lightly.
And on the single most load-bearing doctrine (resurrection) the strongest counter-argument is not Persian at all. Jon Levenson (Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel, 2006) argues that bodily resurrection develops from inside Israelite covenant theology: from Ezekiel's valley of dry bones, from a God who reaches into Sheol, from the tie between resurrection and national restoration. Persia and the age of martyrdom may have triggered the doctrine's final form; they cannot by themselves account for it. The honest reading adopts Levenson here (internal development, not import) while preserving "resonance" for the broader structural cluster.
The bottom line
Did Christianity copy Zoroastrianism? No, not as provable, text-to-text borrowing, and anyone who tells you it's settled is overselling. But the cosmos the New Testament breathes (light against darkness, a coming judgment that sorts truth from the Lie, an Adversary, a resurrection, an end that renews the world) shares a deep structural architecture with the faith of the Magi, whether by transmission, by convergence, or by both. The skeptic constrains how the parallel may be explained. The skeptic does not abolish the parallel.
Common questions
Which ideas in Christianity resemble Zoroastrianism?
A cluster largely absent from the older Hebrew scriptures appears and hardens after two centuries of Persian rule: a personal cosmic Adversary, ranks of named angels, the bodily resurrection of the dead, a final judgment, heaven and hell, and a world-saving figure at the end of time. The one older faith already built on exactly those elements was the religion of Zarathustra. The resemblance is real, deep, and structural; the honest verdict is resonance you can lean on, not influence you can bank.
Why can't scholars prove the borrowing?
The systematic Zoroastrian version everyone wants to line up against the Bible survives only in much later books, the Younger Avesta and the Pahlavi texts, preserved in manuscripts copied around the 9th century after Christ. Arguing from a manuscript written about 900 CE back to a religion as it stood around 500 BCE, and then claiming it predates a Jewish text written in between, is a 1,400-year reach. So the direct causal chain is unverifiable, and that concession is the load-bearing honesty of the case.
What is "parallelomania"?
It is the methodological cudgel against careless comparison, coined by Samuel Sandmel (JBL, 1962) and pressed for the Persian question by James Barr (JAAR, 1985): a parallel is not a borrowing, and most such arguments quietly assume the very direction they set out to prove. Edwin Yamauchi (Persia and the Bible, 1990) built the standard conservative challenge on the dating gap. The lesson is that the skeptic constrains how a parallel may be explained without abolishing the parallel.
Did the resurrection come from Persia?
On this most load-bearing doctrine, the strongest counter-argument is not Persian at all. Jon Levenson (2006) argues bodily resurrection develops from inside Israelite covenant theology: from Ezekiel's valley of dry bones, from a God who reaches into Sheol, from the tie between resurrection and national restoration. Persia and the age of martyrdom may have triggered the doctrine's final form, but cannot by themselves account for it. The honest reading adopts internal development here, while preserving "resonance" for the broader structural cluster.
This is the careful version of a claim the internet usually gets wrong in both directions. The full argument (with the Persian cosmos, the Aramaic prophet who breathed it, and the architecture the imperial church later overwrote) is in the book.
Sources
M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism; S. Sandmel, "Parallelomania," JBL 81 (1962); J. Barr, JAAR 53 (1985); E. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible; the Qumran Community Rule (1QS III-IV; Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English); J. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel.