This is where we are at an impasse and I don't think either of us will agree with the other. I will give you one example of what I mean:I used Mounce as an example. He follows an exegetical method and doesn't let later historical events determine the meaning of the Greek.
Re Revelation 17, Mounce (I'm using the 1998 edition) acknowledges that the Greek can support two different understandings of the Whore of Babylon. Call them A and B. He then chooses understanding B based on his interpretive framework/assumptions. When he does that, you say he's doing exegesis and not reading anything, including history, into the Greek.
On the other hand, when a historicist chooses understanding A based on his interpretive framework/assumptions, you say he's not doing exegesis and is reading history into the Greek.
Both sides have a framework and assumptions they are working with. Both sides are looking at the Greek. But the interpretation of one side is rejected even though commentators in other schools of thought acknowledge that the Greek could support both. So again, as I said earlier, it boils down to which interpretation and arguments you find the most convincing and that's okay.
I also don't see how the claim of "reading history into scripture" sticks without time travel being possible. If a person says they expect, based on their study of Daniel 2 and 7, that the Roman Empire will collapse future to their time, break into 10 kingdoms, etc., there is no history being read into their schema. They are saying, "This what the Scripture says based on my studies of said Scripture." History subsequently either does or does not bear out that understanding.
I have read futurists who interpret Daniel 2 and 7 in a similar manner to historicists (the NIV Study Bible is one example I can think of). They are not reading history into their interpretation because from their perspective, it hasn't happened yet.
But to suggest that historicists are not looking at the Hebrew or Greek to draw out the meaning of the text is, I would argue, mistaken. An example is re 2 Thessalonians 2 where the interpretation hinges in part on the Greek word used for "Temple." If I can re-find the sources I read on this, I will let you know.