It is common for some Protestant apologists (e.g., Norman Geisler; Eric Svendsen) to argue that 1-2 Chronicles (which is one book/scroll in the Hebrew Bible) was the final book in the Old Testament canon of the Jews during the time of Jesus, just as it is today. For a refutation of this, see, for e.g., my essay:
Catholic apologist Gary Michuta has done a good job at refuting the abuse of Luke 11:50-51//Matt 23:35, a “proof-text” that Protestants are fond of using to support this errant claim. For more, see:
Gary Michuta on the Zechariah of Luke 11:51 (for more, see Michuta’s book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger).
Old Testament scholar, Gary Knoppers, in his commentary on 1 Chron 1-9 in the Anchor Bible Commentary series, wrote the following which calls into question the medieval Jewish practice of having Chronicles as the final book of the Old Testament; instead, he argues, as does David Noel Freedman and others, Ezra-Nehemiah (which was treated as one scroll/book) takes that honour:
Linked to but separate from Ezra-Nehemiah, the book of Chronicles could precede Ezra-Nehemiah, follow Ezra-Nehemiah, or take on a life of its own.
In the LXX, Chronicles usually precedes Ezra and Nehemiah and follows other historical books (Joshua through 2 Kings). Its title, Paraleipomena (“the things left out”), provides a vital clue about its interpretation. Chronicles complements and supplements the primary history, that is, Genesis through 2 Kings (Freedman 1992:95-97, 105-6). Both works are profoundly concerned with the land—how Israel emerges in, consolidates its control over, and is finally expelled from the territory Yhwh gave it. The primary history ends with Judah’s exile from the land, but the Chronistic History supplements this earlier work by announcing the people’s return.
Whereas in the LXX Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah normally find their place among the Historical books, in the Hebrew Bible, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah find their place among the Writings (Kethuvim), the third and final section of Tanakh. But the placement of Chronicles within the Writings is not consistent. Within important medieval codices (the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex 19A), Chronicles occurs first among the Writings. Ezra-Nehemiah appear last. In another Hebrew tradition, represented by the Babylonian Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b), Ezra-Nehemiah precedes Chronicles. Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles are the last two books of the Kethuvim. The assertion of the Masoretic authors of Adat Devarim (1207 C.E.) that these differences in sequence reflect the Palestinian and Babylonian traditions, respectively, is disputed (Curtis and Madsen 1910:2; cf. Japhet 1993a:2). Scholars debate which order is original, but each sequence evinces its own logic.
The placement of Chronicles at the beginning of the Writings calls attention to the links between the Chronicler’s exemplary David and the David of the Writings. Even before one reads about David’s associations with Temple music and the Jerusalem cult in the Psalm superscriptions, one reads detailed descriptions of these activities in Chronicles (s. Driver 1914:369-70; Childs 1979:514-15; Freedman 1993:78-85). The very positive depiction of Solomon in the Writings also coheres with the presentation of Chronicles. To be sure, the Chronicler’s description of Solomonic wisdom is directly inherited from the presentation in Kings. But the Chronicler’s Solomon also differs from the Deuteronomist’s Solomon. In describing the United Monarchy, Kings does not refrain from pointing out major failings of David and Solomon (e.g., 1 Samuel 11-12; 1 Kings 11:1-40). Such sins do not occur in Chronicles. The appearance of Chronicles before Proverbs, Qohelth (Ecclesiastes), and Song of Songs elucidates the celebrated position Solomon enjoys in those works.
The location of Chronicles at the beginning of Ezra-Nehemiah at the end of the Writings is meaningful for another reason. Chronicles begins with the first human, depicts the totality of Israel in genealogical form, presents the story of Israelite occupation of the land during the monarchy, and concludes with the decree of Cyrus ending the Babylonian Exile. In this manner, Chronicles contains and reverses the tremendous tragedy of the Babylonian destructions and deportations soberly depicted in 2 Kgs 24-25 (Meade 1987:44-71). Since Ezra-Nehemiah begins with the decree of Cyrus and continues with the resettlement of Yehud, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah form an inclusio around the Writings (Freedman 1993:27). As a frame to the Writings, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah cover practically the entire historical span of the Hebrew Scriptures. (Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1-9 [AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2003], 135-37, emphasis in bold added)
Continuing, Knoppers offers this suggestion as to why 1-2 Chronicles would be placed at the end of the Hebrew Bible in the so-called “Babylonian” canon:
The decree of Cyrus is also a unifying feature of the book order of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles in the Tanakh. That Ezra-Nehemiah begins with the decree of Cyrus and Chronicles ends with the same underscores the importance of the return (Freedman 1993:76). When seen in historical perspective, the placement of Chronicles at the end of the “Babylonian” canon is quite interesting. The first and last books of Tanakh begin with the creation. Because the history depicted by Chronicles covers the same period as that of Genesis through Kings, Chronicles beings a sense of closure to the canon (Japhet 1993a:2; Steins 1995:507-17; Koorevaar 1997). But one can argue that the agenda of Chronicles, and therefore that of the Hebrew Bible, is incomplete in 2 Chron 26:22-23. The decree of Cyrus authorizing the rebuilding of the Temple and allowing the exiles to return home, ends with a summons, “Whoever among you from his [Yhwh’s] people, may Yhwh be with him and let him go up (wěyācal).” At first, the notion that the Hebrew Scriptures should end in midsentence is puzzling. But when one considers the events in the first centuries C.E., the rationale underlying this order becomes clear. The First Jewish Revolt (66-73 C.E.) witnessed the devastation of Jerusalem and the burning of the Second Temple. The destruction of the Temple, never supposed to happen again (Ezekiel) did. This catastrophe constituted a profound crisis in the history of Judaism, but the rabbis, drawing upon the traditions of Pharisaic Judaism, responded to the challenge. Indeed, the Judaism that emerges from the two Jewish wars is formative, hence classical, for medieval and modern Judaism (S. Cohen 1987; Neusner 1988). The ending of Tanakh becomes understandable in the context of the emergence of rabbinic Judaism. Even though Jerusalem is deprived of its Temple (66-73 C.E.) and its people (132-35 C.E.), the ending of Chronicles bears witness to hope for restoration. Transformations occur, but the ties binding God, people, land, and city together endure. The final verses of one of the “sources of Judaism” announces the reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple and beckons the people to return home. (Ibid., 137)
Therefore, the tradition of placing Chronicles as the final book of the Hebrew Bible is a practice that post-dates Jesus. To read that back into Luke 11:50-51//Matt 23:35 is eisegesis.
The claim that Matt 23:35 and Luke 11:51 assumes that Chronicles is the final book in the canon cannot be proved (pace de Wette 1850:17; Japhet 1993a:2). Matt 23:35 clearly draws upon both Zech 1:1 and 2 Chr 24:20-22 (Gundry 1982:470-72). But whether Jesus’ saying “from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berachiah” alludes to the OT canon or to the OT period is uncertain (Eissfeldt 1965:567-68; Harris 1990:77-80).
