The Bush Clan has for some time reminded me of the High Priestly family consisting of Ananias, and Caiaphas, and another relative whose name I cannot this moment remember. I have no reason to see a connection (relationships between those people in either group are not, to my knowledge, analogous), but nevertheless reckon one group or set of relationships like unto the other.

Jeremias provides the following information:

"In fact, Israel at the time of Jesus was a pure theocracy, and the priesthood was the primary representative of the nobility. Thus the reigning head of the priests, in times when there was no king, was the most eminent member of the nation. We must therefore concern ourselves first with him, the high priest (Kohen gadol), as the most important member of the priesthood and consequently of the whole people."

"The leading position of the high priest is based upon the cultic character of his office, the 'lifelong sanctity' (qdussat 'olam, M.Naz vii.I; character indelebilis) of one authorized by God (b.Kidd.23b:the priest is God's agent in the offering of sacrifices) to make atonement for the sins of the whole community (Ex.30.10; Lev. 16). This character of office was transmitted to him by the investiture with the eight parts of the splendid high-priestly vesture. This vesture possessed atoning power and each of its eight parts atoned for specific sins. Consequently, for Jewry it was the very symbol of their religion. Only thus can it be understood that neither Herod the Great, Archelaus, nor the Romans later could find a more effective safeguard against rebellion than to keep the high-priestly robes in custody in the temple fortress of Antonia, handing them over to the high priest only on feast days. It also explains why the Jews struggled so tenaciously to have the vestments released, a struggle which ended only when the Emperor Claudius ordered their release by a decree in his own hand, on 28 June AD 45; for the campaign over the high priest's vesture was for Jewry a religious campaign (Ant. 18.90ff; 20.6ff. cf. also 15.403). It is especially significant, however, for the cultic character which the high priest possessed ex officio, that his death had power to atone. As soon as the high priest died, all homicides who had fled from their avengers to the 'cities of refuge' (Num. 35.9ff; Deut. 19.1ff; cf. Ex 21.23) were free and might return home (Num. 35.25; M.Makk.ii.6), and according to the prevailing opinion of the scribes they might even take up their former positions (M.Makk.ii.8). The death of the high priest had, by virtue of his office, expiated the guilt incurred by accidental homicide."

"...Next, there were privileges for the high priest in the cultus, especially that of taking part in the sacrifice at any time heliked. In addition he had the right to offer sacrifice as a mourner, which was forbidden to the rest of the priests...."

Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.