The external evidence is an absolute landslide here. Why one would risk their "good" reputation on account of the testimony of one Dead Sea Scroll manuscript is beyond me. I would reconsider taking that bet? It is a longshot built upon a foundation of guesswork and conjecture, unwarranted conjecture at that. All Hebrew manuscripts save one (4Q37) read "sons of Israel", the Targums follow suit (as Mr. Avery has pointed out). The Samaritan Pent., some LXX mss., the Syriac and the Vulgate of Jerome all support the traditional reading. Against this mountain of evidence we have one Heb. manuscript and "Some texts of the Greek Version" (F.C. Cook comm.). Taking to mind the obvious fact that the LXX is saturated with omissions, interpolations, scribal errors and the like. This variant should have never have been given quarter past the margin of a hyper critical edition of the Torah. How the NRSV, NLT, MSG, ESV, etc. have put this one over on the general public is almost dishonest.
The internal evidence in no way changes this. The context and subject of the section (Deut.32) is "Israel" and God's plan concerning them. Not the angelic host! God had Israel in mind when he "divided to the nations their inheritance". "Now the LORD had said to Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation" And again..."he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them: and they shall afflict them four hundred years...But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."
"The presence of God is to me more than all the learned world"-Bengel