Most of these expressions appear in the Gathas, and the language of the Gathas are more archaic than the Young Avestan compositions. Your right it's not relevant to your argument. I just thought it was an interesting detail because the average person would see the NT as a continuem of the OT, but really the NT has so many elements that are not mentioned in the OT, rather they can be found in Zoroastrian scripture. Even angels and demons only appear in the intertestimentary material and Ethopian Cannon of the OT. There is a long stream of secondary sources, Iranian and Greco-Roman, that confirm elements from Zoroastrian scripture and tradition. Ahuramazda is a metathesized contraction of the Avestan loanword Mazda Ahura which appears in Acheamenid inscriptures. And the Avestan language is an authentic language. Loanwords like this show the Avestan language must have been in use prior to the Acheamenid inscriptions before Darius 500 BC. Xanthus of Lydia (450BCE), Eudoxus of Cnidus (410-347BCE) Theopompus (380BCE) Alcibiades (300/2BCE) Cicero (106-43 BCE)Trogus Pompeius (100BCE) , Diodorus Siculus (60-30BCE) Pliny (77-70 CE) Plutrach (100-200CE) Diogenes Laertius (300CE) Porphyry (234-305 CE) Agathias (530-582/94 CE) Suidas (1000 CE) all mention Zoroaster. I'm not agreeing with the Greco-Roman placement of Zoroaster in time all I'm saying is that this was how the Greco-Romans thought. All I'm saying is that if you're going to place Zoroastriasm when the Denkard, and leave out lingiustic, arachological evidence, secondary sources, it's just as easy to say Herodotus and all the other Greek authors date to a later period. I understand. I'm just more concerned with how much influence these religions had on the Abrahamic faiths or at least how much in common they had with the Abrahamic faiths.