Yet what should be more amazing is the lack of acknowledgement of
Zoroastrian influence among Christians and Jews and everybody else -
despite the unequivocal agreement that there was this influence from
almost all the scholars who look into the matter.
Even if it sometimes goes too far a bit of Zoroastrian enthusiasm is
needed to counter all the false history that has been concocted.
I basically agree.
But this is why it is also important to stress where Zoroastrianism has NOT been influential although often assumed to have been so. Take for example the much talked about Essenes sects of Judaism around the time of Jesus who have often been assumed to be strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism.
I however believe this influence was no more than the label "Sons Of Light" which the Essenes attached to themselves. Very little else in their ascetic messianistic lifestyle signals any genuine Zoroastrian lifestyle. Rather the opposite. They despised "the civil society" which has always been central to Mazdayasna.
Perhaps Peter Schogol knows more about the Essenes and whether I'm too negative here about their possible attachment to Zoroastrianism?
Because the strange thing is that Jesus was clearly very "Zoroastrian" in his ethical rather than moralizing teachings. The problem of course being that we must admit the opposite of St Paul who later largely shaped the Christian religion where moralism is instead key and center. Christianity should correctly be referred to as Paulinism in my opinion. ;-)