This paper uses the text linguistics of Eep Talstra, observes all the linguistic features at the grapheme, morpheme, phrase, clause, and text at all textual levels, judges the relationship between clauses whether it is parallel or hierarchical, and goes through the same process from the first clause to the last clause in a text, and discovers the syntactic-hierarchical structure of Deuteronomy. While scholars, Robert Longacre and Francis. I. Andersen, suggest that a text is an arrangement of lexemes, Talstra considers a text as a text hierarchy, which defines the function of a clause type depending on the context where it belongs. The same clause type, Wayyiqtol-X, could open a textual unit at a high textual level, or at a lower textual level. A text hierarchy helps a reader to sharpen the definition of a clause type. While previous scholars determined textual structure according to a thematic criterion, this study focuses on syntax, especially EDSFs (Elaborate Divine Speech Formulas) to demarcate major divisions in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (1:1-32:47 and 32:48-34:12), while BDSFs (Basic Divine Speech Formulas) demarcate micro-divisions under the EDSFs. The asyndetic tōledōt formulas compose the macro-structure of Genesis, while the EDSFs function as a structuring principle in the four books and compose the macro-structure of the Pentateuch. The structuring principles in Deuteronomy are MSFs (Moses’ Speaking Formulas), in which Moses called, spoke, or commanded a participant or a group of participants, and MAFs (Moses’ Agent Formulas), in which Moses moved, behaved, came, went or wrote. MSFs function as a macro-demarcation marker, while MAFs function as a micro-demarcation marker under MSFs. To be specific, this paper demarcates Deuteronomy into prologue (1:1-4:49), body 1 (5:1-28:69), body 2 (29:1-32:47), and epilogue (32:48-34:12). A pattern moving from a verb (hear) to (keep) splits the body 1 into four sub-divisions. In comparison, MAFs (WayX clauses describing the movement of Moses) split body 2 into four sub-divisions. This paper explains each division’s opening and closing markers and its inner structure and argues that the syntactic-hierarchical structure is a convincing way to read Deuteronomy. This paper also discusses scholarly demarcations, explains the effect of reading Deuteronomy as a text hierarchy, and argues its advantages. Lastly, this study summarizes its contribution to studying Deuteronomy. This paper does not undermine the textual structures according to thematic criterion but rather proposes that the text-hierarchy of Deuteronomy is a sound alternative method of reading Deuteronomy.