If pre-describing Moshe's death is a problem, why isn't the land of Naftali?

Summary: BrooklynWolf asks this excellent question. And here is a few ways one might, and some did, answer it.

Post: In a comment on my previous post, about how Rabbi Yehuda might answer Rabbi Meir's midrashic objection to saying that Yehoshua wrote the last eight pesukim, BrooklynWolf writes:

I'm not sure why saying that Moshe wrote the last eight verses is so difficult -- notwithstanding the fact that the events did not yet happen. The last chapter also describes Moshe looking out over the land of the various tribes that -- at the time of the writing -- did not yet belong to them. No one knew which portion of the land was going to be for Yehuda, Dan, Naftali, etc. -- that was all determined by lottery later on. 

If the premise of the problem is that "how could Moshe have written it, it wasn't true as of that time?" then you could ask the same question about verses 1-4 which, it seems, according to all opinions were written by Moshe. How could you say that Moshe looked on the land of Naftali, for example, if it's entirely possible that he might have gotten other lands?

The Wolf

It is a fair point. Why does describing Moshe's death bother Rabbi Yehuda, while describing the eventual nachalah of Naftali does not? (I suggest in the comments there that according to Chazal, this lottery was simply revealing the Divine choice, and thus was matched by the Urim veTumim which pre-predicted how the lottery would turn out.)

In the good old days, how was this question resolved?

Well, here is a rather easy answer, and way out:

The text on the right is our Masoretic text, while the text on the left is the Samaritan Torah. **** represent words from the other side which are absent on this side. See how this description of "the Gilead until Dan, and all the land of Naftali, the land of Ephraim and Menashe, and all the land of Yehuda", and "the Negev, Kikar, the valley of Yericho, the city of Temarim until Tzoar" is stripped out in the Samaritan text and replaced with "from the river of Egypt until the great river, the Euphrates river".

I wouldn't put much stock in this variant text as being original, just because this is precisely what we see over and over in the Samaritan text -- fixes to make the text "better". It does seem, though, that this post-Mosaic description might have bothered the scribe of the Samaritan Torah, prompting this fix.

Another reaction might be to endorse this as problematic, and post-Mosaic, as well. Ibn Ezra indeed takes the full twelve pesukim of this perek and labeled them as from the quill of Yehoshua. Thus:

ויעל משה -לפי דעתי: כי מזה הפסוק כתב יהושע, כי אחר שעלה משה לא כתב ובדרך נבואה כתבו.
והעד ויראהו ה' גם: ויאמר ה' אליו גם ויקבור.

Another reaction might be to endorse precisely this. Here, by the land of Naftali, as well as throughout the Torah, future events are encoded, though they had not happened yet. E.g. vayirdof ad Dan. Ibn Caspi writes:

ויעל משה . לפי דעתי כי כל זה כתב משה עצמו
עד לעיני כל ישראל , להנחיל גם זה הספור כלו לנו ולבנינו,
ואם יש בזה דברים עתידים, כמו שכתב כל התורה, ואם סיפור שבחי
עצמו אין בזה חסרון לשלם כמוהו לפי המקום הראוי לו :