Commentaries are just someone's opinions. Opinions that are mostly wrong.
I will stick with the Scripture.
Said no one who reads commentaries.
You read what others write to help you learn.
You also say it is not hard to avoid the writing of those who do not know the truth.
So I assume you believe you know the truth and when someone is teaching things not true.
Do you just read after those who support your belief?
One can make educated decisions and find credible resources. You aren't going to be "tainted" if you read an interpretation you don't agree with, you simply recognize that we see through a glass darkly and most of these things are not show stoppers.
I will read things that I don't agree is the best interpretation from an author but I don't toss the book in the fireplace because of it.
I am constantly learning so much that is true that I don't sweat it when the author misses it now and then. I am sure I will also if I ever pick up the pen to write such a work.
Sticking to the scriptures is the whole purpose of a commentary.
To discover authorial intent is how you are supposed to interpret scripture. What did the author mean in its original context. If we could ask him, what did you mean by that because we have 15 different meanings that people are proposing all saying they stick only to scriptures.
So how do you resolve this? Commentaries will show you examples of exegesis. If you have turned left when you should have turned right you will notice it and say "I can't believe I never saw that before" And then do we get mad at God for not showing it to us, or do we concede to the value of diligent study?