Let us read a bit further in your source Expositor's N.T.I don't depend on scholars or scholarly works as I not only have degrees in the Biblical Languages, and can speak both languages (in addition to 14 others), so am able to judge the text and context myself.
However, if you need to view other "scholarly works" that address Titus 2:13, please note the Expositor's Greek Testament. Regarding Titus 2:13, we read (in part):
In view of the fact that the most probable exegesis of Romans 9:5 is that ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, θεός εὐλογητὸς, κ. τ. λ. refers to Christ, it cannot be said that ὁ μέγας θεός, as applied to Him, is un-Pauline. But the proofs that St. Paul held Christ to be God Incarnate do not lie in a few disputable texts, but in the whole attitude of his soul towards Christ, and in the doctrine of the relation of Christ to mankind which is set forth in his epistles. St. Paul’s “declarations of the divinity of the Eternal Son” are not studied, as Ellicott admits that this would be if the R.V. rendering (our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ) be adopted. To this it may be added that the Versions, with the exception of the Aethiopic, agree with R.V.m. Ell. cites on the other side, of ante-Nicene writers, Clem. Alex., Protrept. § 7, and Hippolytus,—quoted by Wordsworth—besides the great bulk of the post-Nicene fathers. The text is one which would strike the eye of a reader to whose consciousness the Arian controversy was present; but it is safe to say that if it had read τοῦ σωτῆρος, the μεγάλου would have excited no comment. Consequently the papyri (all vii. A.D.) cited by J. H. Moulton (Grammar, vol. i. p. 84) “which attest the translation our great God and Saviour as current among Greek-speaking Christians” are too late as guides to St. Paul’s meaning here. The similar problem in 2 Peter 1:1 must be discussed independently. At least, even if it be granted that the R.V. there is correct, and that 2 Peter 1:1 is an example of the transference to Christ of the language used of deified kings “in the papyri and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times,” it does not follow that the same account must be given of Titus 2:13.