The purpose of this essay is to identify the criticism that has been directed towards the traditional description of Judas Iscariot as a traitor. After a survey and analysis of the critical revisionists' arguments, a discussion follows regarding the possible effects this may have on future ways of describing Judas Iscariot. Based on the results that have been elucidated, this essay concludes that the traditional description of Judas in recent times has been forced to endure fairly strong criticism. To summarize this criticism, the main argument raised by today’s revisionists consists of linguistic and historical phenomena. According to these Judas Iscariot has been subject to a, according to some, deliberate demonization; where he over time has become portrayed as more blameworthy. This representation has been rejected by the revisionists in favor of an alternative version, which instead emphasizes Judas as a faithful and obedient servant; the one closest to Jesus. Another primary argument from the revisionists' is the misuse of the Greek verb paradidomi. Based on this linguistic argument, Judas should be regarded as a (obedient) servant when he handed over Jesus, rather than a traitor. The motive behind Judas's actions is in this context considered to be good - although this version did not become known and rewarded for the posterity; which probably explains why Judas's negative attributes all the way back since this era are fairly negative, and then developed in the same track. Through this criticism, an alternative interpretation of the historical Judas Iscariot has been introduced. Based on the arguments that have been discussed in this essay, it is possible that we will eventually get to see this alternate interpretation given more legitimacy; but for the time being it seems rather unlikely that something so radically that a paradigm shift is imminent. As this discussion has intensified, combined with the increasing number of discoveries within this field that today are revealed, the revisionist critique, however, has gained more legitimacy - something that probably may proceed for some time to come.

This essay discusses the portrait of the whistleblower Edward Joseph Snowden in different media forms. Edward Snowden, the NSA employee who in June 2103 revealed NSA’s secret global surveillance system in the newspapers The Guardian UK, The Washington Post and The New York times, has been portrayed in various types of media such as news articles, film, documentary and self-biography. With references to the communication theories re-mediation and storytelling, this thesis examines which components are used in these different types of media to portray Snowden and how the perspectives differ. It also focuses on which traits that defines a hero and a traitor. And if the typical whistleblower is a hero or a telltale. The information is very similar. Which we can expect depends on that the information has not been remediated very far from its original source. What sets the portraits apart is the perspective and who and what Edward Snowden is shown in the opposite to. For example, in the news articles, Snowden is always talked about in reference to the government, and how he betrayed the loyalty of the government and his oaths. While in the rest of the media forms, produced by and representing the public, he is presented as the hero who took the integrity of the public and his own beliefs in his own hands and stood up against the government. Both sides can in substance prove their point, it is all about the perspective and whose side the audience and the authors are on.