But possibly only because it was used in the Septuagint. I sat and listened once at a study center to two professors arguing the matter; they lost me when they started quoting not just the Septuagint but both rabbinic and philosophical works to make their points. At the time the Septuagint was translated, λόγος wasn't really used in the later sense; Plato and Aristotle were more interested in whether the λόγος of primary forms and the λόγος of the real world were the same, so in use it tended to mean "thought", "word", "matter/topic", "nature", "norm", and "being"-- more focused on the particulars rather than on a grand organizing principle. Stoicism kind of gets there, but they didn't use the λόγος as a universal principle for everything, only for universal reasoning a sort of mind that holds/thinks all truth. It's the "mind" "behind" the universe that defines all the particulars. Neo-Platonism is where λόγος comes into its own, and that's later.Then they got it from the Greeks.
At least that's the "no reliance of Greek thought" argument. It's one of those things I can argue either way, though neither side as well as those two professors; it was like they were incarnation of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament plus Liddel & Scott rolled into one!
Ah -- okay, I didn't catch that.The choice here is between Incarnate Word and Incarnate Word of God.
The gospel of John does not use "Incarnate Word of God."
Of course John doesn't use "Incarnate Word of God"; after his Prologue the "of God" would be redundant. Phrasing it as "incarnate God the Word" might have fit his thought (Gregory and especially Cyril of Alexandria used the phrase), but that's actually more of a polemical formulation than anything used against Nestorius et al.