Were Egyptian monarchs referred to by the title "pharaoh" alone, without using their proper names, from around 1500 BCE until the 10th century BCE?

Question

In his book Ani Maamin, Rabbi Joshua Berman makes a comment about the usage of the term "Pharaoh" in the Book of Exodus, indicating that it was in line with the standard conventions in Egypt c.1200 BCE, which is when he envisions the biblical Exodus narrative having been composed:

In the Exodus account, pharaohs are simply called "Pharaoh," whereas in later biblical passages, Egyptian monarchs are referred to by their proper name, as in Pharaoh Necho" (II Kings 23:29). This, too, echos usage in Egypt itself, where, from the middle of the second millennium until the tenth century BCE, the title "pharaoh" was used alone. (Ani Maamin p.53)

This statement was made without elaboration, citations, or footnotes.

Is Rabbi Berman's statement accurate? (In at least some sense? I could not tell if he meant that the proper names of pharaohs in Egypt were consistently absent during that time period, as in the Book of Exodus, or if he meant that it was at least sometimes used alone during that specific time period but not in later ones.) If so, how common would it have been to use "pharaoh" alone during that time compared to a full name such as "Pharaoh Ramesses," and how much of a shift was there in this convention after the tenth century BCE?

I tried checking some ancient texts such as the Amarna Letters, statues with inscriptions, and peace treaties, from around the time period in which Berman states the title "pharaoh" was used alone, and the full names of the pharaohs are indeed used in the examples I was able to find. However I don't have such a sufficient breadth and scope of familiarity with ancient references to the Egyptian monarchs to reach much of a conclusion about the accuracy of the above claim.

Answer 1

This is at least partly correct.

Egyptian titulaturs for pharaoh and Egyptian royal titulary changed significantly over time and between dynasties.

What is remarkable in this context is that 'pharaoh' only became used to represent 'king' in the middle of the second millennium BCE. In inscriptions it was often only to be read as 'Horus did this and that', not giving any clue to an actual name. At the same time a superstitious belief manifested itself to not pronounce a holy name. (Cf — Herodotus, Histories II,61; II,170) This tradition of not speaking out loud the name of any pharaoh is well attested for at least beginning in the Middle Kingdom period. (— Hans-Werner Fischer-Elfert: "Die Lehre eines Mannes für seinen Sohn. Eine Etappe auf dem Gottesweg des loyalen und solidarischen Beamten des Mittleren Reiches", Ägyptologische Abhandlungen, vol 60, Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, 1999.)
Only around 1000 BCE it became common to combine the title Pharaoh with a given name.

The entry from New Pauly reads:

Pharaoh —— Greek rendering (φαραω/pharao) known from the Old Testament (Hebrew Gn 12:15 and passim) of the ancient Egyptian term for an Egyptian ruler. In Egypt, the term referred originally to the royal palace or court and literally means 'great house'. From Thutmosis III (1479–1426 BC) at the latest, this expression also designated the person of the Egyptian ruler. As a title before the name of the ruler, it is encountered from the 10th cent. BC onwards.

— Kahl, Jochem (Münster), “Pharaoh”, in: Brill’s New Pauly, Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and, Helmuth Schneider, English Edition by: Christine F. Salazar, Classical Tradition volumes edited by: Manfred Landfester, English Edition by: Francis G. Gentry. doi First published online: 2006

As described here:

Prohibition of naming the king (pharaoh).
Particularly striking is the prohibition to mention the name (ancient Egyptian ren) of deities. Such taboos are only secondary and partially studied in Egyptology for ancient Egyptian religion. Herodotus reported the prohibition of publicly pronouncing the name of Osiris in certain contexts. The negative confession of Ramses VI, who boasted of not having pronounced the name of Tatenen, belongs in this subject area.
The rite of not mentioning the name of the king, but only writing it down and reading it, is attested more often; for example, extensively in the Middle Kingdom in the "Teaching of a Man for His Son" and in sources that address "right conduct toward the king." Reasons for this taboo are probably to be seen in the reverence and fear of the respective deity, since public utterance was associated with the reception of negative magical powers. In the case of the prohibition of pronouncing the name of the king, the main motive might be the fear of magical consequences, to which a possible defamation by imprudence could add. In this context is the further taboo environment to mention the "hidden and secret names of certain gods".

Why "partially correct"?

The biblical account seems to use the word anachronistically. Not for the time after 1000, but before, for example during the time the Moses story is set:

The Year 17 inscription is an important palaeographical development because it is the first time in Egyptian recorded history that the word pharaoh was employed as a title and linked directly to a king's royal name: as in Pharaoh Siamun here. Henceforth, references to Pharaoh Psusennes II (Siamun's successor), Pharaoh Shoshenq I, Pharaoh Osorkon I, and so forth become commonplace. Prior to Siamun's reign and all throughout the Middle and New Kingdom, the word pharaoh referred only to the office of the king.

— WP: Siamun 986–967 BC (21st Dynasty)

Juxtaposing biblical tradition with developments in Egyptian history:

Another factor that might account for the absence of Pharaoh's name in the exodus narratives is that it was normal in New Kingdom inscriptions not to disclose the name of Pharaoh's enemies. Several examples of this practice will suffice to illustrate this point. Thutmose Ill's campaign against the rebellious coalition at Megiddo was fomented by the king of Kadesh (on the Orontes) — who is named "that wretched enemy of Kadesh" (hrw pf hs n kdsw) or simply "that •wretched enemy" in the Annals of Thutmose III and in the Gebel Barkal stela.Even when reviewing the booty taken from this battle, the scribes do not name the king whose possessions the Egyptians captured: "the fine chariot made of gold belonging to the prince (wr) of [Megiddo]," "the fine mail armor of that enemy (i.e., the king of Kadesh)" and "the fine mail armor of the prince of Megiddo".

Giving the fitting description, albeit with a little too far-reaching conclusions:

Historians have long lamented that the writer of the Joseph narratives (and those of Exodus, too) did not furnish the reader with the name of the Egyptian king. Throughout Genesis and Exodus, the well-known title "Pharaoh," derived from pr '3, literally "great house," is used.

As a reference to the palace, this expression goes back into the Old Kingdom, but as an epithet for the monarch, it does not occur until the Eighteenth Dynasty,sometime before the reign of Thutmose III (1479–1425 B.C.).

By the Ramesside period (1300–1100 B.C.), "Pharaoh" is widely used and continued to be popular in the late period. From its inception until the tenth century, the term "Pharaoh" stood alone, without juxtaposed personal name.

In subsequent periods, the name of the monarch was generally added on. This precise practice is found in the Old Testament; in the period covered from Genesis and Exodus to Solomon and Rehoboam, the term "pharaoh" occurs alone, while after Shishak (ca. 925 B.C.), the title and name appear together (e.g., Pharaoh Necho, Pharaoh Hophra).

Thus, the usage of "pharaoh" in Genesis and Exodus does accord well with the Egyptian practice from the fifteenth through the tenth centuries. The appearance of 'pharaoh" in the Joseph story could reflect the New Kingdom setting of the story, or, if its provenance is earlier (i.e., the late Middle Kingdom through Second Intermediate Period), its occurrence in Genesis is suggestive of the period of composition.

— James K. Hoffmeier: "Israel In Egypt. The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition", Oxford University Press: London, New York, 1996.

In conclusion it seems evident that the 'patriarchal usage' of 'pharaoh' is a very distorted one, adapted to contemporary understanding at the time — just like we ourselves often tend to call all rulers of Egypt 'pharaoh'. In the case of the Exodus narrative however, it is quite diligent to not over-interpret the parallels that seem apparent between Biblical usage and Egyptian usage. It is not the only interpretation to infer that 'therefore, the texts were indeed originally written/composed [then/as eye-witness account etc…]'.
Instead we should really stick to the description Berman used himself: "This, too, echos usage in Egypt itself,…"

Further insights into this obviously interconnected but often disjunctively discussed matter: — Thomas E. Levy & Thomas Schneider & William H.C. Propp: "Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective. Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience", Springer: Cham, Heidelberg, 2015.

Answer 2

Rabbi Joshua Berman is an Orthodox Jew. Among other things, this means that he takes as a matter of faith that the entire Torah, including Exodus, was literally handed to Moses at once by God. Verbatim.

If one takes that as a given, then inconsistencies in language usage constitute a genuine logical problem that one may be forced to devote no small amount of intellectual effort into explaining away. This is what he's doing here.

For this website, we embrace all creeds, colors, and genders, and rely on a variant of textual criticism and the Scientific Method known as the Historical Method. That means we are free to readdress theories that don't explain the evidence well, rather than desperately try to readdress evidence that doesn't explain our immobile theories well (often called "the Unscientific Method")

In this case, the best explanation for large consistent language differences between different parts of different Jewish texts is that they were written by completely different people at completely different times. In this particular case, it appears the scholarly consensus is that Exodus was originally composed by the Jewish community in exile in Babylon around the 6th Century BC. This is centuries after it is set, so honestly the most likely explanation for "Pharoh" not being specifically identified by name is that the people who wrote it weren't sure, and didn't consider that detail particularly important to the story.

There was a very specific reason they wanted that story of escape from enslavement in Egypt taught to their children while they were enslaved in Babylon, and it wasn't to give us people today a history lesson.