u/Legitimate-Gain-9747

So my recent posts here are about the 3rd book of Ezra (the prophet) which I decided to read recently. Much of the information which is written there seems contradictory or incompatible when compared to both the 1st and the 2nd book of Ezra. The main thing is that Ezra should have lived over 150 years in order to have been both deported from Jerusalem to Babylon and return back over a century later. Although he is mentioned as the son of Seraiah who died around 586 B.C. it seems difficult to me to believe that Ezra survived that long. Many people say that this work is classified as pseudepigrapha and that it was written much later (even after the New Testament was written) but it is still included in some bibles of the Orthodox Church. There is also an icon I've seen with a quote from that book and the title "prophet" ascribed to Ezra regardless of the fact that in the other books he is considered merely a priest and a scribe. Is the said book accepted by economia even though we know it's not factually right compared to the information we get from the other 2 books?

Is there an edition with every book (including Latin Ezra or 3 Ezra and 4 maccabees)?

For example, there has been stated in a comment somewhere in this forum that St. Joseph (the Hesychast) was born Catholic and then became Orthodox by chrismation. I've read that the saint grew in an environment influenced by Catholicism and cultural renaissance. Furthermore, it is stated that his baptismal or secular name was Francis but there is no evidence of a Catholic background anywhere I've searched. Is that evidence that a baptismal name can't be always derived from saints?

Some say it is just a noun meaning unfermented grape juice, others say it denotes red wine, foaming wine, fermenting wine etc. I've also read that it is an adjective which means "pure". Do we know for certain that this word means wine in general?

According to Septuagint Deuteronomy 32:14 ("and they drank the blood of the grape, even wine") seems to suggest that they are one and the same (even is a translator's addition that doesn't exist in the original text) but then again in Genesis 49:11 these terms have been clearly separated ("he shall wash his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape"). One could say that, regarding Genesis there is some sort of poetic repetition but this is not explicitly evident from the context.

Is it wine or just something else which was produced by the vine? Could it be a drink from must? Is there any way to be sure that "the fruit of the vine" definitely means wine?

So English is not my first language but I've seen both terms used for the dead bodies of saints in Orthodoxy that do not decay. Which one is preferable? Does it make any difference? Thank you.

According to OrthodoxWiki, "Dismas" is the name of the penitent thief or the good thief but his name is not really mentioned in the scripture. I've also heard it used by some Orthodox. Is this name used as a sobriquet nowadays?

Sources seem to disagree on this topic so I don't know which perspective is more correct. Some sources state that their bodies were already glorified before the general resurrection while others state that the prophets appeared in bodily form just like all the living people yet these bodies remained miraculously incorrupt. It's confusing.

Edit: Thanks for the responses

What's the difference between these concepts of the "resurrection of the dead" and the "transformation of the living" which are connected to the 2nd coming? For example we read that every person will be transformed in Corinthians (presumably that could also include the Theotokos who was bodily taken into heaven yet was not changed according to a source that I read which claimed that her resurrected body wasn't changed but retained). Is it a belief that the resurrection apparently will not be experienced by everyone since there will still be people alive at that point who will merely undergo transformation?