Christ is not a plastic individual in the Greek substantival sense

Evidence

In fact, Hegel explicitly states that Christ, considered in the exceptional character of his subjectivity, cannot and should not be considered as a ‘plastic individual’ of the type represented by the ‘substantial individuals’ of Greece. For example, he should not be identified with Socrates. Against the plurality of Greek examples, there is only one absolute Example: If we consider Christ only in reference to his talents, his character and his morality, as a teacher, etc. — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 835

Categorization

• XREF: Christ as singular absolute example versus Greek plural exemplars parallels the reader’s interest in how singular plastic events exceed typological categories. — connects to: Modern subjectivity reverses Greek plasticity by making essence become accidental through kenosis — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 859; Christ’s historical life is only graspable through the speculative Idea, not biography — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 836
• QUESTION: Cuts the paragraph short at ‘absolute Example:’ — the resolution continues in the next paragraph; the distinction between Greek substantial plasticity and Christ’s exceptional plasticity is the precise point needing follow-up.