The entry for Zombies expressly and clearly states they can be raised from the dead (and restored to life, not undeath) with Resurrection.
Which is weird. Why talk about 'powerful magic' and Resurrection if Raise Dead or even Revivify would suffice? I suspect it might be a mistake and they meant to say True Resurrection. Also, this is in the fluff section, so I wouldn't treat it as rules, though it can certainly give an insight to the intent.
There have been canonical examples of creatures who were made undead, being destroyed and then raised (coming back as the non undead, living versions of their former selves) as well. Not sure if any exist post 5E, but certainly in earlier editions of the gmae.
Well, that really doesn't matter. There often are things in the fluff that doesn't strictly follow the rules and even more so if we talk about stuff produced under a different edition.
JC did post a contradictory tweet, but that tweet doesn't make sense (a Zombie that is destroyed is not a valid target for Revivify as it's not 'a creature that has died in the last 1 minute', unless - in addition to being a Zombie that was destroyed, it is ALSO a creature that died in the last minute (by virtue of dying, being reanimated as a zombie, being destroyed and then being targeted with the spell.... all in the space of a minute).
Mechanically it is a zombie that died. The rules do not differentiate between destroyed and dead for creatures. Mechanically constructs and undead 'die' when they run out of hit points. I agree that Crawford's ruling is intuitively weird, but it seems to be in accordance with RAW.
Personally I'll take the RAW on Zombies (they can be restored to life by being destroyed, and then Resurrected) and the literal, plain English definition of undead (a creature that is neither alive, nor dead) as my guide.
What I feel is confusing that you seem to be vacillating between plain English and rules definitions of things. I assume the rule text refers to rules concepts, thus when rules refer to 'dead' creature they mean a creature that has become permanently inactive due running out hit points regardless of creature type and when they refer to corpse of a given creature type they refer to a corpse left by a creature of that creature type.
Found it.
It's canon in 5e (You can kill a Vampire, and Raise the corpse from the dead, where it returns as the former living person):
Curse of Strahd (pg. 47):
Ok, so according to this Raise Dead is sufficient...
(Also, am I expected to search every adventure module to learn how the rules in PHB are supposed to work?)
For the avoidance of any doubt, there is also true resurrection:
This spell closes all wounds, neutralizes any poison, cures all diseases, and lifts any curses affecting the creature when it died. The spell replaces damaged or missing organs and limbs. If the creature was undead, it is restored to its non-undead form.
That's about as explicit as it gets right there.
Of course the implication here is that due to that explicitness, ONLY true resurrection restores a former undead to it's living form (resurrection, raise dead and revivify are not enough).
But according to this, it is not and you need True Resurrection...
This is a mess!
I knew that True Resurrection can do it, which to me pretty strongly imply that other spells cannot!