Unlike the prologue, the 500-line epilogue explicitly refers to laws.  The epilogue begins (3144`–3151`): “These are the right decisions that Hammurabi has. (Dīnāt mīšarim ša ḫammurabi. ukinnu-ma). He glorifies His laws and generosity (3152`–3239`).  He then expresses the hope that “every unjust man who has a complaint” (awīlum ḫablum ša awātam iraššû) can have the laws of the stele read to him and know his rights (3240`–3256`).  This would bring praise (3257`–3275`) and divine favor (3276`–3295`) to Hammurabi.  Hammurabi wished good luck to any leader who listened to his statements and respected his stele (3296`–3359`).  However, he invokes the wrath of the gods on anyone who disobeys his statements or erases them (3360`-3641`, the end of the text).  [Note 1] Wolfram von Soden, who decades earlier called this way of thinking enumerating science, often denigrated it.  However, recent authors such as Marc Van De Mieroop, Jean Bottero and Ann Guinan have either avoided value judgments or expressed admiration. Lists were at the heart of Mesopotamian science and logic, and their strong structural principles made it possible to generate endless entries.
 The connection between the codex and the writing tradition in which the “science of lists” was born also explains why aspiring writers have copied and studied it for more than a millennium.  The codex appears at the end of the Babylonian (7th-6th century BC). List of literary and scientific texts.  No other body of law has been so firmly anchored in the curriculum.  Instead of a legal code, it can therefore be a scientific treatise.  The Code of Hammurabi also has strong similarities to later collections of Mesopotamian law: to the casuistic laws of the Middle Assyrian and to the Neo-Babylonian laws, whose format is largely relative (“a man who..”). It is easier to directly influence these subsequent collections because the code survives thanks to the writing program.  Finally, although the influence is more difficult to trace, there is evidence that Hittite laws may have been part of the same legal writing tradition outside Mesopotamia.  However, the arguments against this view are strong. First, it would result in a very unusual code – Reuven Yaron called the term “code” a “persistent misnomer.”  Important sectors of society and commerce are left out.  Marc Van De Mieroop, for example, notes that the Code “deals with livestock and agricultural fields, but almost completely ignores the work of herders, which is vital to the economy of Babylon.”  Second, contrary to legislative theory, highly implausible circumstances are generally recorded, such as threshing with goats, animals that are far too unruly for this task (Bill 270).  The laws are also strictly casuistic (“si.
then”); Unlike the Mosaic law, there are no apodictic laws (general commandments). These would more clearly indicate a prescriptive law. The strongest argument against the legislative theory, however, is that most judges seem to have ignored the code. This criticism comes from Benno Landsberger in 1950.  No Mesopotamian legal document makes explicit reference to the Code or any other statute book, despite the large size of the corpus.  Two references to recipes on “a stele” (narû) come closest to each other. On the other hand, many judgments cite royal decrees of mīšarum.  Raymond Westbrook argued that this reinforced the silence argument that the ancient legal codes of the Middle East had legal significance.  Moreover, many ancient Babylonian judgments completely contradict the provisions of the Codex.  The Codex of Hammurabi is the most comprehensive collection of Babylonian laws that has survived. These are Hammurabi`s legal decisions collected towards the end of his reign. These 282 cases include economic provisions (prices, tariffs, commerce and industry) as well as family law (marriage and divorce), criminal law (assault and battery) and civil law (slavery and debt).
To prevent such quarrels from contributing to social instability, Hammurabi ensured that his laws were understood as absolute. Just as your-Nammu claimed that he had received his laws from the gods, so did Hammurabi, but to make this perfectly clear, he had engraved an image of the god of justice, Shamash, on the stele that handed the laws to Hammurabi. The laws, which then descend from this image in cuneiform rows, refer to their divine origin as well as the greatness of Hammurabi as a bani matim (“builder of the earth”), who built majestic temples for the gods, built canals and irrigated the earth, and who administered these laws for the benefit of all people. The codex is relatively well understood, but some points in its vocabulary are controversial. As mentioned earlier, the terms awīlum and muškēnum have proven difficult to translate. They probably refer to a male member of a higher and lower social class.  Wolfram von Soden suggested in his Akkadian dictionary that muškēnum was derived from šukênum, “to bow/plead.”  As a word for a man of lower social status, it has survived, perhaps from a Sumerian root, in Arabic (miskīn), Italian (meschino), Spanish (mezquino), and French (petty).  However, some earlier translators, who also tried to explain the special treatment of the muškēnum, translated it as “leper” and even “noble.”  Some translators have provided stilted readings for awīlum, such as “lord”, “elite man,” and “member of the aristocracy”;  Others left it untranslated.  Some legal concepts have also proved difficult to translate. For example, dīnum and dīttum can refer to the law in general, as well as individual laws, judgments, divine declarations, and other phenomena.  Mīšarum may also refer to the law in general as well as to a kind of royal decree.
 Fragments of a second and possibly a third stele recording the code were found with the Louvre stele in Susa.  More than fifty manuscripts containing the laws are known. They have been found not only in Susa, but also in Babylon, Nineveh, Assur, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, your, Larsa and more.  Copies were made during the reign of Hammurabi and thereafter when the text became part of the writing program.  Copies were found a thousand years after the making of the stele, and a catalogue in the library of the Neo-Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (685-631 BC) lists a copy of the “Judgments of Hammurabi.”  The additional copies fill most of the original text of the stele, including much of the deleted section.  The relationship between the Code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic Law, especially the Exodus Covenant Code 20:22-23:19, has been debated since its discovery.  Friedrich Delitzsch argued for strong influence in a lecture in 1902, in an episode of the “Babel and the Bible” debate on the influence of ancient Mesopotamian cultures on ancient Israel. However, it met with strong resistance.  There were cultural contacts between Mesopotamia and the Levant, and casuistry cuneiform law tablets from the Middle Bronze Age have been found at Hazor.
 There are also similarities between the Hamurabi Code and the Covenant Code: in casuistic format, in principles such as lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”), and in the content of the provisions. Some similarities are striking, as in the provisions concerning a human ox (Code of Laws Hammurabi 250-252, Exodus 21:28-32).  Some authors have postulated a direct influence: David P. Wright, for example, argues that the federal code is “directly, principally, and constantly dependent on Hammurabi`s laws, a creative paraphrase of Mesopotamian sources.” be considered as an academic abstraction and not as a compendium of laws”.  Others postulate indirect influence, for example via Aramaic or Phoenician mediators.  However, the consensus is that the similarities are the result of common traditions.  In 1916, George A. Barton cited “a similarity between prehistory and general intellectual perspectives.”  More recently, David Winton Thomas has stated: “There is no reason to suppose a direct borrowing from the Hebrews from the Babylonians. Even if the two laws differ little in letter, they differ greatly in spirit.  Hammurabi, also spelled Hammurabi, (born in Babylon [now in Iraq] – died to Iran.