Even for centuries after Christianization, Old English (Anglo-Saxon, pre-Conquest) still kept on pretty much using Germanic names. A common form was two-part names: choose your first part from Column Protheme and your second part from Column Deuterotheme. (Some name elements could appear in both places; some elements appeared in only one position.) Examples: Eadwulf ("prosperity wolf", by the way), Wigfrith ("war peace"), Leofstan ("dear stone"). There were uncompounded Germanic names too (Bubba, Ragge).

For a sampling, you can see Sara L. Uckelman, "The Names of Testators in the Cartularium Saxonicum Malmesburiensem", http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/english/malmesbury-oe.html . The only Christian name I see is Daniel, and the bithematic names are rampant.

The Old English name stock got thoroughly whacked at the Norman Conquest, especially in the aristocracy. Few such names survived, and they tended to be saints (like Hilda, Edward) or Wessex kings (like Alfred, Edward). The Normans came from the Norse some time back, so many Germanic-origin names came across with them (like Richard, Robert), and some Latin-based names or Breton-based names (like Alan).

For a small sample, there are 20 Normans known to have been at the side of William the Bastard / Conqueror in 1066: William Addams Reitwiesner, "Normans at the Battle of Hastings", https://www.s-gabriel.org/names/arval/hastings.html . I see nary a New Testament / saint's name in there, unless there was already a Saint William or Saint Richard, which seems likely.

The Church (or popular piety?) later began to gain influence in naming, though it wasn't until the Council of Trent much later (1500s) that the Church required saint's names as given names. For example, James and Michael aren't attested in England until the late 1100s, John appears once in Domesday Book in 1086 and is only at 2% in the late 1100s. In women's names, Mary, Anne, Elizabeth, and others of the common female saints don't come in until around 1200 either, though Germanic names for women quickly got stomped out.

For a larger sample, Brian M. Scott, "Men's Given Names from Early 13th Century England", https://www.s-gabriel.org/names/talan/eng13/eng13m.html . (The introduction gives the source: "custumals of 21 manors held by the Abbey of Bec".) John is up to #3, Thomas is at #8, a cluster starts from Adam at #12 downwards, but that's 3.2% or less, and (for example) Osbert and Randolph are still beating Andrew and Benedict.

Compare with Brian M. Scott, "Yorkshire Masculine Names from 1379", https://www.s-gabriel.org/names/talan/yorkshire/yorkm.html (from tax rolls). John is in a comfortable lead, and Thomas is #3, and Adam is #6, though a lot of Norman-based names are up there too.

Note, however, that the Christian-based names then were mostly New Testament (Michael does appear in Apocalypse / Revelations) or saints that might not be from scripture (Agnes, Martin, Christian). Not to say that the Old Testament was left alone: Adam and Abraham were in Domesday Book, for example. It was around the Reformation that Old Testament names jumped in popularity and non-scriptural saints tended to decline.

The common name stock got thoroughly squeezed from the 13th C on. "The five names Henry, John, Richard, Robert, William together accounted for 30 per cent. of recorded men's names in the 12th century, for 57 per cent. in the 13th C, and for 64 per cent. in the 14th century." In baptismal records from 1600-49, 50.5% of all males are baptised either William, John, or Thomas; 52% of all females are baptised either Elizabeth, Mary, or Anne. (Source for this quotation and in general above: E. G. Withycombe, The Oxford Dicitonary of English Christian Names. It's getting dated, and not to be relied on for non-English names, but for a broad-brush look at basic facts I believe it's still usable.)