The nineteenth century commentary by Charles Ellicott (editor) with R. Payne Smith writing the book of Genesis takes this position as it applies to Genesis 35:28-29. The name of the commentary set is An Old Testament Commentary for English Readers. as It is old there are a number of websites that have it as HTML or you can go to Google books and search for "An Old Testament Commentary for English Readers: Genesis" and you will find it. It is also available as HTML on Biblehub.com
Smith stated the following:
(28) The days of Isaac were an hundred and fourscore years.—As Isaac was sixty when his sons were born, Jacob was one hundred and twenty years of age at his father’s death, and one hundred and thirty when he appeared before Pharaoh (Genesis 47:9). Now, as Joseph was seventeen when sold into Egypt (Genesis 37:2), and thirty when raised to power (Genesis 41:46), and as the seven years of plenty and two of the years of famine had passed before Jacob went down into Egypt, it follows that the cruel deed, whereby he was robbed of his favorite child, was committed about twelve years before the death of Isaac.
(29) Esau and Jacob buried him.—Esau, who apparently still dwelt at Hebron until his father’s death, takes here the precedence as his natural right. But having in previous expeditions learnt the physical advantages of the land of Seir, and the powerlessness of the Horites to resist him, he gives up Hebron to his brother, and migrates with his large wealth to that country.
What this points out and is often missed is that there is a structure to Genesis that emphasizes the "generations" of an individual and as such it is not entirely chronological. In the KJV each broad section is introduced by the phrase "these are the generations."
In the extraordinary commentary by Allen Ross he gives the significance of the word tôledôt which is translated as "these are the generations of.."
Ross states the following:
The structure of the book is marked by an initial section and then ten further sections with headings. The major structural word of the book is tôledôt, expressed in the clause “these are the generations of.…” The word is a feminine noun from yālad, “to give birth” (properly derived from the hiphil stem of the verb, meaning “to beget”). It is often translated as “generations,” “histories,” or simply “descendants.”2
This word has been traditionally viewed as a heading of a section. Reconstructing the outline according to this view would yield the arrangement below. (See C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949 reprint], pp. 70–71; Bush, Notes, p. 57; Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, vol. 1, pp. 109–11.)
Ross goes on:
1. Creation (1:1–2:3)
2. Tôledôt of the heavens and the earth (2:4–4:26)
3. Tôledôt of Adam (5:1–6:8)
4. Tôledôt of Noah (6:9–9:29)
5. Tôledôt of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10:1–11:9)
6. Tôledôt of Shem (11:10–26)
7. Tôledôt of Terah (11:27–25:11)
8. Tôledôt of Ishmael (25:12–18)
9. Tôledôt of Isaac (25:19–35:29)
10. Tôledôt of Esau, the father of Edom (twice) (36:1–8; 36:9–37:1)
11. Tôledôt of Jacob (37:2–50:26)
Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 69–70.
Moses was emphasizing the beginning and the ending of each of these patriarchs within a section. That means on occasion there will be some overlap of events when dealing with Father and sons as Genesis 25:28-29 makes clear.
The well known commentary by Keil and Delitzsch makes this point about Genesis 35:28-29
With this, therefore, the history of Isaac’s life is brought to a close. Isaac died at the age of 180, and was buried by his two sons in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 49:31), Abraham’s family grave, Esau having come from Seir to Hebron to attend the funeral of his father. But Isaac’s death did not actually take place for 12 years after Jacob’s return to Hebron. For as Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold by his brethren (Gen. 37:2), and Jacob was then living at Hebron (Gen. 37:14), it cannot have been more than 31 years after his flight from Esau when Jacob returned home (cf. Gen. 34:1). Now since, according to our calculation at Gen. 27:1, he was 77 years old when he fled, he must have been 108 when he returned home; and Isaac would only have reached his 168th year, as he was 60 years old when Jacob was born (Gen. 25:26). Consequently Isaac lived to witness the grief of Jacob at the loss of Joseph, and died but a short time before his promotion in Egypt, which occurred 13 years after he was sold (Gen. 41:46), and only 10 years before Jacob’s removal with his family to Egypt, as Jacob was 130 years old when he was presented to Pharaoh (Gen. 47:9). But the historical significance of his life was at an end, when Jacob returned home with his twelve sons.
Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 205.
Matthews in his commentary suggests that some of the confusion regarding the various Tôledôt sections of Genesis may be due to the fact that portions of the genealogies may actually be records the came before the book of Genesis. In this model it is still Moses alone who wrote the inspired text of Genesis, yet he may have used some earlier works that contained the family records of the patriarchs.
The answer settles on what one thinks of the word Tôledôt.
Additional comments based on Alex's additional passages:
What about Genesis 24:22-23?
In Genesis 24:22-23 one of the significant exegetical questions is why did the servant give Rebekah the nose ring and the two bracelets. Keil and Franz Delitzsch suggest that it is not a bridal gift, instead it is a gift for her act of kindness in helping him. As far as the Jewish sources go I don't have access to their arguments. If they believed the gifts were bridal gifts then they may have reversed the order of events to better suit that interpretation. It would take a lot more research to see if there are any extant copies of Genesis that reverses the order. If not I would think this is trying to make the text fit an interpretation instead of developing the interpretation from the text. I would put this in a different category than the previous discussion concerning Genesis 35:29.
What about Genesis 24:64-65?
This one appears to be very much like the Genesis 24:22-23 passage. The reordering of events here seems to be a way to answer a perceived problem with the text. Exegetically the issue hinges on the word וַתֹּ֣אמֶר (she said or she had said) which is a wayyiqtōl (waw-consecutive + imperfect) verb, which usually indicates a simple continuation. Yet a wayyiqtōl verb can on occasion have a preterite sense indicating the action came before. In this usual meaning of verb this would mean her question comes after getting off the camel. If the verb has a preterite sense then the verb may indicate that she asked the question before she got off the camel. Most English translations translate it as simple continuation -- she said. The KJV appears to side with the idea that the question came before getting off the camel -- they translated it as "she had said" with the italics as an addition of some kind. A quick glance at my commentaries did not help here much as they largely ignore the issue or they keep the order as getting off the camel and then asking the question. In the end I think this is in a different class then the Tôledôt structure.