In an interview that the New York Times had with the author Amos Oz, there is a mention of Oz's interest in the New Testament, "which began when he was a 16-year-old, living on a kibbutz and spending his evenings in the library, reading the gospels." We then hear about Oz's thoughts on the Judas Iscariot figure:
[Oz] saw some glaring inconsistencies. Judas was a wealthy landowner, so why did he need those 30 pieces of silver, equivalent, Mr. Oz said, to no more than $600 today?
This perturbed me since I do not remember ever reading that Judas Iscariot was a "wealthy landowner," despite having had a lot of exposure to the New Testament over the years. The only link between land and Judas that I could think of was the episode at the end of his life where he dies and the blood money is used to purchase a potter's field. I also tried searching for "Judas" on Bible Gateway; the only result that seemed relevant was in Acts 1:16–19:
(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
To me, this is at best ambiguous. That "the reward of his wickedness" was the means with which Judas acquired the field implies to me that Judas was only able to buy this field because of the blood money. Furthermore, this does not shed light on Judas' prior financial position.
Am I missing something in my reasoning (both in terms of the text of the New Testament itself, and in terms of relevant historical knowledge or traditional interpretations), or is my scepticism towards Oz's reading justified?