Al-Khazraji reports in his book نفس الصباح في غريب القرآن وناسخه ومنسوخه, volume 2, page 625, says that some have said that
was abrogated in Islam and that it is not permitted that if one swears to beat another a hundred times that he beat him once with a hundred sticks, because honoring an oath can only be made fully, not with a work-around. That is religiously precautionary and it was the practice of the righteous predecessors, may God have been pleased with them. Mujaahid and Maalik's ruling has been thus.
`Ataa' and Ash-Shaafi`i, on the other hand, ruled that such work-around is permissible.
There may have been more about this that Al-Khazraji wrote, but the two pages that follow, 626-627 are blank! The printer missed them.
Acts of the second generation cannot abrogate the Quran, and certainly analysis can't. If that interpretation of the story is true, then it is binding on us too, not just Job (PBUH) because it contains a command from God. That is the reasoning of `Ataa' and Ash-Shaafi`i. But, is it? The interpretation sounds like it is based on an Israelite story.