Some strands of Zoroastrianism are certainly universalistic or at least purgative; the later versions of the theology are more dualistic, so consequently Ahrihman cannot be slated to be saved from his rebellion back to loyalty with Ahura Mazda. (Not to be confused with the Japanese Mazda name. 
)
It is entirely possible that Cyrus (who is referenced in a famous Isaiah prophecy, quoted by St. Paul at least twice, regarding all creatures bowing in loyalty to YHWH eventually, as a foreign messiah chosen by God to save the Jews and to learn about God thereby) decided that the Jews worshiped Ahura Mazda by another name and so eventually supported and protected them. Since I wasn’t around when the Torah was composed, nor during the Babylonian dispersion under the rule of the Persians, I can’t simply eliminate the idea that the Jewish scriptures were adjusted across the board at that time to point toward a more purgative notion of divine punishment and restoration.
What I can be fairly sure of, though, is that this wasn’t a direct influence on the composition of the canonical NT texts nor on the teachings of Jesus as represented in those texts. The church spread out not long afterward into solidly Zoroastrian territories (which by then had become largely dualistic, if I understand correctly), but there was not much backward influence of that expansion to the development of the church along Mediterranean areas, a disconnect which is reflected (among other things) by the lack of importance of traditions of eastern apostolic evangelists in the history of central orthodoxy. That being said, we also know that the early Alexandrian school had contact with the missions to the east in the days of Origen and before, including a treasured copy of GosMatt in Hebrew which was brought back from somewhere near India by one of Origen’s predecessors. That being said, obviously that text had been sent to the East as a source for making translations, and so would have been a source for doctrine itself, not influenced by local Persian doctrines.
At any rate, if a hypothetical Persian doctrinal influence on the canonical OT is suspected, and so the apparent testimonies to Jewish universalism are rejected thereby, that isn’t a problem for the canonical NT (except insofar as the canonical NT is drawn from the canonical OT!) And as an exegetical student, I put more weight on interpreting the meaning of the NT than on following the authority of post-apostolic interpreters of the canonical texts.
So what exactly is your question or charge or suspicion, Alexamenos? If the ancient Jews were forced to learn that God was working among the nations in respectable ways after all, that’s no skin off my nose; and it would be unfair of me to deny that other people elsewhere somehow arrived at what I regard to be religious truth: I’m a big fan of protoevangelical inspiration.
But I’m appealing to scriptural testimony (however it got there) along one line of approach, and to metaphysical logic (which is independent of religious details and so which is accessible to all people in principle) along a parallel line of approach. That’s the typical special revelation / general revelation cooperation. Whatever the Zoroastrians did at different stages of their developments is their business, and not an authoritative concern of mine: I’m clearly not a Zoroastrian (early or late), as any of them would have recognized, even if they might perhaps be as charitable toward my beliefs as I’m willing to be toward theirs (in various forms and degrees). 