If we leave aside for a moment Christ’s divine authority and any other metaphysical teachings, is there anything that Jesus taught concerning ethics and how we should live that had not been taught before?
So far as I’ve been able to determine, His moral imperative was unprecedented.
Except for the teachings which existed before his time, of course.
And when we consider that many other great teachers seem to have taught similar principles independently, we must consider the possibility that the teachings themselves can be derived from more common concepts.
When it was proven that the circle couldn’t be squared, was this “new” or the recognition of an eternal principle?
While the substance of his teaching may not have been unique, he seems to have taken it to an extreme that was well beyond what would have been expected, by other moral teachers, at the time. In Matthew 18, for example, his disciples ask how often we are expected to forgive others. The IVP commentry on this passage says that the standard response of the moral teachers of the day was to “limit forgiveness to three instances of premeditated sin, pointing out that repentance was otherwise not genuine”, so Peter probably would have seen his suggestion of forgiving someone seven times as rather excessive - Jesus’ response is to require forgiveness 77 times (or seventy times seven as some passages have it) - overwhelmingly more than expected by other teachers, and quite impossible to live up to.
This sort of excessive moral standard is repeated in his teaching on other areas - divorce, adultery and murder, to name three - and, to my mind, is what characterises his teaching. There is an impossible moral standard that is set before us, as a result, all people fall short of it, Christians as much as any…
Grim
And, of course, “seventy times seven” in ancient Judaic mythology meant “infinite”, in rather the same way that “ten thousand” represents a number beyond counting in Chinese.
I’d say infinity is quite a bit greater than seven. 
Yeah TVAA but 490’s pretty close to infinity
I remeber hearing somewhere that Jesus’s teachings had certain simlairties with the teachings of Rabbi Hillel and that they may of influenced JC.
I suppose what makes Jesus’s teachings exceptional (miracles and metaphysics aside) is his amazing integrity and devotion to what he taught.
It can’t be denied that he had more moral fibre than any other sage or philosopher since, and many before.
I beleive it was his actions and spontaneous reactions to immorality that embodied his teachings more than his words. My favourite saying of Jesus’s is: “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” something that was very much spur-of-the-moment and not premeditated at all. This kind of spirit and courage to confront inhumanity is absent in any jabbering by moral philosophers who IMHO only grapple with ethical concepts and not real situations.
But if we agree that his essential ethical teaching can be reduced to “identify with other people in order to hypothesise how your actions might be felt by them” then there is no argument that this is original.
The notion of identification as a moral tool, for example, is quite prevalent in early Chinese philosophy and formulations can be found in both the TTC and Confucious.
<math history hijack>
This was is 1880 by Lindemann
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Lindemann.html
</math history hijack>
Weird… you rearranged my sentence to turn it into a question (although a rather odd one).
I think the “Love your Neighbor” concept was not new. But Jesus expanded the definition of what “neighbor” meant to include all of humanity. That was radical if not “new”.
A lot of Jesus’ ethical teachings had LOTS of precedents among prophets, lawgivers, philosophers, preachers, etc. but he synthesized the cream of all that into something purely Jesusy.
Of course, I don’t believe that JC was great because of what He taught as much as I believe what He taught is great because He was the one who taught it. There’s some stuff in the Sermon on the Mount I’d dismiss as idealistic nonsence if it wasn’t said by Jesus.
I’m gonna go with Cecil here and say Jesus was simply the recipient of some really good PR. 
Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, my response is "And what is the point of the question in the first place?
It doesn’t have to be new
In order to be True.
Eh, Cecil didn’t actually say that, though. The article in question says that Jesus had the benefit of good PR, but it doesn’t claim that this was the only – or even primary – reason why Christianity spread so successfully. In fact, it also emphasized the inherent appeal of the salvation message itself, and didn’t preclude other factors (e.g. Christ’s charisma or the apologetics abilities of Paul and the original Apostles.
Hush. Let the poor boy “read” what he wants to see.
Correct. “Love your neighbor as yourself” is in Leviticus.
Zev Steinhardt
I know a lot of people think Jesus is great, and I wondered since his teaching was not wholly original, how people justified to themselves his greatness.
I think FriarTed puts it well
I would say … “what he taught is great because of the way he taught it.”.
Leviticus 19:18 to be exact - I couldn’t find it earlier. Interestingly, this seems to imply that love is owed to “one of your people,” IOW other Jews only - which makes Jesus’ choice of a Samaritan in the famous story all the more shocking, and expands the point that JC took the expectations of his moral teaching far beyond that of any of his peers/predecessors.
Grim
I think the freshest teaching that Jesus brought to the table (while he was alive on Earth) is the fact that individuals can know God and speak to him directly verses the standard approach that the Jews did at that time (ie: Sanhedrin rules, slaughtering lambs for sin, Temple pilgramage etc.) Jesus taught his disicples that God loves and cares for them as individuals and that they can approach God in prayer with a sincere heart.
Of course I believe the greatest thing that Jesus taught to his disciples that one can be forgiven of all sins by believing upon Jesus and accepting him and his gift of eternal life. This dawned on the disciples after he was crucified and ressurrected. The last supper took on a whole other meaning AFTER he was ressurrected. This was certainly new…as in a new covenant.
I think the “eat my flesh & drink my blood” was rather unusual to say the least. Think that’s not an ethical teaching? It’s a directive to do something, innit?