As stated in #42: Judas is not written much of; especially considering how great a deal is made of him forever after the day Matthew says he "repented... and hanged himself [Matthew 27:3d - 5]." That which is written is as sketchy as those who wrote it. I like Matthew's version, if only because-- in Matthew's account of Judas' demise, and only here-- am I relatively sure at least one of the Dirty Dozen took the first step from Jewry to God: repentance.
Also as stated in #42: there are discrepancies in the respective accounts (numbering two) extant in the canon concerning Judas' 'final end'. Luke, in 'The Acts of the Apostles [Acts]', records Peter recounting the death of Judas-- likely sometime before Pentecost the year it occurred-- on one wise; while Matthew, perhaps many years after, records the events in otherwise fashion altogether.
As sketchy as this amalgam of events is another, and of no less importance to any Jew worthy of ancestry: Judas' final act concerning the settlement of his estate; a.k.a.: 'the disposition of his soul in earth'. "What's it worth?" Pete seems to ask. Both accounts record a final lightening of the inheritance he passed on at his own soon- to- follow death-- by perhaps as much as one hundred percent.
Like the widow with two mites, Judas may have put his all 'in the treasury' when he-- according to Matthew-- cast the thirty pieces on the floor of the temple. Pete seems to 'not know' about this settlement while obliquely acknowledging it took place. Both claim this arbitration occurred immediately preceding Judas' death. But again: the two are not one.
Though Pete mentions Judas in Acts 1:16, who's to say the "he" mentioned in verse 17 isn't Jesus of Nazareth-- not Judas Iscariot? The "this man" of verse 18 could, as a matter of oratorical form, indicate the speaker-- if not for the sorcery the address would then obviously require.
Pete's subsequent description of the "this man" he mentions in verse 18, resembles Jesus more than Judas. "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity [Jesus was "accursed of God," (becoming "sin for us," Paul says) having, like Judas, hung to die; and-- according to Matthew-- having been so valued by those who 'bought' his soul as worthy of the silver paid for the field.]; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst [Unlike Judas, Jesus' bowels were spilt when he 'fell' upon his 'lifting up'.], and all his bowels gushed out [Acts 1:18]." "...and forthwith came there out blood and water [John 19:34b]."
Perhaps the one Peter refers to as "this man" is one of the high priests. There were two of them-- Annas and Caiaphas by name-- at the time of Judas' and Jesus' coincidental 'last day'. 'One' of them may have "bought with [the thirty pieces of silver] the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8 Wherefore that field is called, The field of blood, unto this day [Matthew 27:7 & 8]." Who's blood?
According to Luke, Pete may have been confessing one of the high priests as a 'made man' among the Twelve. Was his wild deviation from the witness provided by Matthew a revelation into the reasons Jesus 'died' without Peter? "For [Jesus of Nazareth] was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 Now this [priest] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood [Acts 1:17 - 19]:" might be a 'more literal translation' of Peter's confession in Acts 1 concerning 'Judas'.
Does it speak ill of him who was not willing to die with Jesus to speak ill of one who-- though saying he wouldn't die with him-- knew of no way to live without him as soon as he comprehended something Pete likely knew all along: Jesus' was innocent blood? Pete's tale entirely contradicts Matthew's, regardless the reasons. Would Matthew lie on Judas' behalf? Who would Petey lie for? "Who should be the greatest [Mark 9:34b]?" Jews is Jews. Perhaps they both lied.