Pause if you will to consider the implication of establishing that laws of Hammurabi existed in Genesis centuries before Hammurabi and in which direction the influence would be. There is nothing that indicates that the laws that God gave to Moses had to be new laws that had never been seen before, but as Genesis shows, many of God's laws were in place long before Sinai. Many of the God's laws were given by Him prior to Abraham, but as Genesis 26:5 states, Abraham had been given God's laws. It should not be surprising to find that other cultures adopted some of these laws and it should not be considered copying of other cultures when the same God who gave laws throughout Genesis to Abraham gave the same laws to Moses.
Then we'd need to establish a chronology based on timelines. Moses doesn't pen his books until about 1700 BC, while Hammurabi much earlier. Also, earlier laws existed in the Ur-Nammu code. We don't have anything that predates Sumer, a Pre Semitic aggulagnative speaking people.
Let's delve a little further, let's look at assemblies in each cultural context in order to see why and what has passed in time.
It is not uncommon for Bronze Age texts from Mesopotamia and Syria to refer to the general collectivity of deities as a “council” or “assembly.” Indeed, this divine social structure seems to be the dominant way to refer to the gods and goddesses as a group. Mesopotamian literature attests to “the assembly of the gods” (puhruilani) in a number of different contexts.
The Ugaritic (these are a sect of nomads alongside the Israelite's and Canaanite's) texts also use this language extensively to refer to the deities.
Apart from the expression “meeting of the gods” (‘dt’ilm), which is confined to one section of Kirta (1.15 II 7, 11), the terminology for the general assembly involves the root, *phr. The usages with this term is divided into three categories:
• “the assembly of the gods,” phr ’ilm (1.47.29, 1.118.28, 1.148.9)
• “the assembly of the divine sons,” phr bn ’ilm (1.4 III 14)
• “the assembly of the council,” phr m‘d (1.2 I 14, 15, 20, 31)
The meaning of Ugaritic phr is suggested not only by the ample attestation of its cognate term puhru in Akkadian (inventors of the Semitic language) but also by its use in the Ugaritic texts.
In 1.23.57 the word refers to a group: “and the assembly sings” (wysr phr).
In 1.96.9, 10, the word is apparently parallel to “gate” (tgr).
These passages illustrate the sensibility of what Ugaritic phr designated, namely, a group (1.23.57) and perhaps the location where that group meets (1.96.9–10).
The contexts of the other nondivine attestations are unclear (1.84.41; 4.17.2). In the cases listed, the word might denote the pantheon as a generic whole without reference to any particular deity.
The word ’ilm in this first category means “gods” or the name “El” with final -m. In favor of the first option, we contrast the expression, “the assembly of the sons of El,” mphrt bn’il, where the lack of -m on the final word marks it as a singular noun and hence the god’s name.
Accordingly, one might not be inclined to view these expressions of assembly as El’s assembly as such. To The Structures of Divinity put the point differently, the mythological texts present El as the head of the divine assembly, but the terminology embedded in the expressions for assembly here do not refer specifically to him.
Accordingly, the word “assembly” (phr) refers to a more restricted groupings of deities centered around particular gods. In contrast to the more inclusive expressions noted thus far, these expressions clearly name a specific god: El “the assembly of the sons of El,” mphrt bn ’il (1.65.3; cf. 1.40.25, 42; cf. 34); cf. bn ’il (1.40.33, 41, and its reconstruction in parallel lines in the same text, lines 7, 16, 24; 1.62.7; 1.65.1; 1.123.15). “the circle of El,” dr ’il (1.15 III 19) “the circle of El and the assembly of Baal” dr ’il
wphr b’l (1.39.7; 1.62.16; 1.87.18) “the circle of the sons of El,” dr bn ’il (1.40.25, 33–34) “the assembly of the stars,” phr kbbm (1.10 I 4), possibly parallel to “sons of El,” bn ’il and “the circle of those of heaven,” dr dt sˇmm (1.10 I 3, 5) Baal “the assembly of Baal,” ph % r b‘l (1.162.17); cf. dr ’il wph% r b’l (1.39.7; 1.62.16; 1.87.18).
Ditanu “the assembly of the collectivity of Ditanu,” phr qbs dtn (1.15 III 15; cf. line 4; 1.161.3, 10). These expressions suggest a more particular organization than the pantheon as a whole, namely, various groupings centered around a specific divine figure. These may represent the families of these patriarchal figures. This paradigm is evident in the case of 1.40.33 where “the circle of the sons of El” (dr bn ’il) is preceded by “the sons of El” (bn ’il).
These examples also show the terms, “circle” (dr) and “collectivity” (qbsfi). The term dr might be rendered either “council” or “circle,” or perhaps better “collectivity,” based on “the collectivity of priests” (dr khnm) in 4.357.24.9 In sum, the terminology of ph % r divine name reflects different divine “assemblies,” one belonging to El, a second to Baal, a third to Ditanu. As the next section claims at greater length, none of these represents the pantheon as a whole.10 Of the expressions I listed, “the circle of El and the assembly of Baal” (dr ’il wph% r b’l) in 1.39.7 and 1.41.16//1.87.17–18, seem to refer to the pantheon as a whole as the sum of two parties named according to the two chief gods; if correct, it would imply that dr ’il does not constitute the pantheon as a whole.11 The general Ugaritic pantheon may lie behind the enigmatic expression in 1.47.1, ’il sfipn, “the gods of Sapan,” given the rather inclusive listing of deities that follows (note also the collective phr ’ilm in line 29 of this text); if correct, subsuming the deities under the rubric of Baal’s mountain would reflect the divine leadership of Baal over the pantheon.
F. M. Cross (Assyriologist) offers a wider definition of the The Divine Council pantheon as a whole (1.3 V; 1.4 IV–V; 1.17 VI):
"wherever two or more deities with El are present, there the general divine assembly meets, even if the terminology of council is absent from the passage."
However, there is no reason to assume that the mythological scenes describing El at his abode involve (even as pars pro toto) the general pantheon, perhaps only El’s more immediate assembly. Indeed, the language of assembly is missing from these scenes, and their rendering of El’s abode differs markedly from the description of the divine council.13 The issues are admittedly complex and the data debatable, but given these differences in the rendering of El’s abode and the site of the divine council, caution in identifying them is in order; the same point may apply to the language of El’s council and the pantheon more generally.