From that summary, here's one great quote, of very many:
Significantly, modern scholars now focus heavily on extracting evidence from the testimony of witnesses in spite of themselves, which is an important insight (c.f. M. Bloch and especially R.G. Collingwood). 'But', Bauckham proceeds, 'we should also note that nothing about modern historical method prohibits us from reading the explicit testimonies of the past for the sake of what they were intended to recount and reveal' even if some deny that the 'past voluntarily "gives" the historian anything'. This is all the more true as this denial tends to lead to the unsustainable assertion that 'whereas in everyday life we treat testimony as reliable unless or until we find reason to doubt it, in scientific history testimony is suspicious from the outset and can only be believed when it is independenly verified'. But at this point 'it ceases to be testimony'. Testimony, despite the attitudes of much modern Gospel scholarship, invites to be trusted; comprehensive doubt is impossible. (p.30)One might add that the modern "science" of Psychology also depends often on subject testimonials. Good psychologists qualify and disclaim their data, of course, but they also go forward and build towards conclusions based on that data. In many areas of that particular field, they can hardly do otherwise.
I don't mean the scare quotes around "science" like you might think. It's just that some fields of study can be more scientific than others. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology and History - each in it's own right - can be no more restrained by controlled testing than their own nature allows. And no less, certainly.