From Paratext to Commentary

The Qumran library is rich in interpretative literature. Depending on classification, there are approximately 80 literary compositions from the Qumran library in which Jewish scriptures are rephrased and interpreted. Now that almost all of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been published, it is apparent that we have no definite indications pointing to Essene paratexts (also known as parabiblical texts). This is astonishing, given the great significance of exegetical literature in the Qumran library. In contrast, all the commentaries and almost all the other exegetical texts found in the Qumran library were written by members of the Essene movement.
Why did the Essenes produce commentaries or other exegetical works instead of writing paratexts? The Essene preference for commentary and other forms of exegesis seems to point to a different attitude towards Jewish scriptures.
The Essenes regarded the Jewish scriptures as too holy to be altered in a way that would stray beyond the accepted textual variants of ancient biblical manuscripts. This special regard for the scriptures distinguished the Essenes from other Jewish groups which continued to write paratexts such as the Jeremiah Apocryphon.
Does the Essene reluctance towards rewriting the Jewish scriptures point to a peculiar characteristic of ancient Judaism, or do similar phenomena appear in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Greco-Roman culture?