Under these conditions, were the Ten Plagues and a total crush of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea waters to happen, as we are told by the Torah, Egypt's ruthless neighbors -- the Babylonians and the Hittites -- would immediately invade the powerless country, conquer it, and glorify their victory in dozens of records, inscriptions, and monuments. Yet nothing like this ever happened. More specifically, historical records tell us that between 1320 and 1283 BCE Egypt and the Hittite empire were at a state of permanent war; had the Ten Plagues and the Exodus happened in 1313 BCE, when Judaic tradition claims they did, they would have quickly led to a Hittite invasion and conquest of the ruined Egypt -- which, of course, did not happen. Instead, after almost four decades of indecisive war, a peace treaty and a mutual defense pact were signed between Egypt and the Hittite empire.
See there for the author's response (which only responds to the plagues - not to the splitting of the Red Sea).
Most of that discussion between the critic and the author I'm not currently interested in. What I want to do is strengthen the question of the critic:
The simple read of Exodus 14:4 - 28 is that the ENTIRE Egyptian army drowned at sea. (If so, then the question of the critic is much stronger; why didn't the Hittites attack Egypt immediately afterward?)
See this related question.