Scotland's Jews

[Nathan]

Because the Old Testament is written in Hebrew and the New Testament is written in koine Greek.

Of course! But I thought the original translations of the Hebrew scriptures into English came from the Septuagint which was already also Greek. In any case, if one translated the New Testament which had a Greek rendering of the names into English, and translated the Hebrew Scriptures from the original Hebrew, this would indeed account for the difference.

The demotic speach of Jesus and his disciples was not Hebrew but Aramaic.

True, but the Judeans had a very good facility in "Lashon Kodesh" or the "Holy Language" at the time as the Temple was still standing and all religious services were (and are still) conducted in Hebrew. Torah learning was also conducted in Hebrew. Not only that, but Aramaic is a very close cousin to Hebrew. They share an alphabet and a lot of vocabulary. I did mention Aramaic in an earlier post, but was referring to Hebrew names because, the Jews of the day didn't change their naming conventions with the Aramaic vernacular.

(PS When I did a course on Religious Studies some twenty years ago, we were told that Old Testament was the specifically Christian term, like Before Christ. The neutral terms would be the Hebrew Scriptures and Before Christian Era.)

Indeed that's the neutral term and kudos to your religious studies prof for using that inclusive language. However, when referring specifically to the scriptures as used by Christian translators into English, I think 'Old Testament' is appropriate as this is the language they use. When referring to the Hebrew Scriptures as used by Jews, it is typical to use the term Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim). When one refers to the Tanakh, it is also clear that they are referring to the Masoretic Hebrew text rather than the Septuagint. I do agree that the term "Old Testament" is a very loaded term and probably never should have been coined.

I wonder if Joseph's coat of many colours was Tartan...