Reggie, I would suggest considering @glipsnortās comments. The claim of Jesus scoring āhighā on the Rank-Raglan scale derives from Richard Carrierās book On the Historicity of Jesus. Glipsnort pointed you to Daniel Gullottaās paper in the JSHJ (Brill), the first published response in an academic journal to Carrierās book (which was actually released in the last month). Gullotta examines a number of Carrierās claims, including his use of the Rank-Raglan scale. I have read this paper.
The relevant part of the refutation of Carrier is on pp. 340-344. First, he notes that modern scholars simply do not use the Rank-Raglan scale because it is quite Euro-centric and ethno-centric, and instead they opt to use other reference classes that are more rigorous and take into account that cultural and temporal context of each story/narrative/person in question. Thus, Carrierās use of the Rank-Raglan scale is bad methodology to begin with. Gullotta also notes that if any of these other reference classes were used, Jesus would never score high enough to qualify as myth.
Secondly, Gullotta notes that Carrier actually significantly alters Rank-Raglanās original criteria in order to make it fit better with Jesus. For example, while one of the original Rank-Raglan criteria for a myth was that the person in question ābecomes kingā, whereas Carrier alters it into ācrowned, hailed, or becomes kingā in order to include Jesus. Another of the Rank-Raglan criteria is āmother is a royal virginā, whereas Carrier reproduces it much more ambiguously as āmother is a virginā in order to include Jesus. In fact, Gullotta shows that Carrier alters a significant number of the criteria, and that if we actually use Rank-Raglanās original reference class, Jesus actually doesnāt qualify. Thus, the only time we ever see Jesus actually qualifying as a myth according to this reference class is when Carrier alters a significant number of the criteria so as to allow Jesus to qualify. Gullotta remarks that Carrier never informs his readers that he has alterd the criteria, nor has he explained why he has done so.
So, in conclusion, the Rank-Raglan reference class is not ideal to use in the first place, and scholars prefer other reference classes, all of them if used would show Jesus is not a myth. Furthermore, even if we use the Rank-Raglan class, Jesus still doesnāt qualify. The only time Jesus ever qualifies as a myth is when Carrier modifies the Rank-Raglan class in a significant number of ways. This is enough to show the entire argument is disingenuous and another of Carrierās confections in place of his lack of evidence for his thesis.
Carrier responded to Gullottaās paper on his blog. Itās very unconvincing. For example, when trying to respond to Gullottaās exposing of him by showing he actually modified the Rank-Raglan class to make Jesus fit into it, Carrier claimed he was āimprovingā it! LOL. Suffice it is to say, this is a ridiculous argument when critically examined. You should consider reading Gullottaās paper in full.
(EDIT: I will reproduce this post under the comment section of the YouTube video you offered)