OK, granted 'kai' ("and") does not occur there. So it seems you wish to restrict the scope of your supposed rule to contexts of the form:
A and B <something> Z
where A and B are possible subjects (nouns or noun-type terms of some sort), and Z is a pronoun ('autou', or some cognate of it) that in context is referring back to an earlier subject. Your claim seems to be that in such a case, Z refers exclusively to B, as being the nearer antecedent subject, and not to A.
Let's look at a few examples of such a grammatical construct, which I have found and extracted using the Online BIble. Do these match your claimed rule?
(Note: In what follows I assume from your earlier comment you can read Greek, but I give the KJV as well, which in general closely follows the Greek, in both word order and meaning. For purposes of highlighting the relevant construct within each passage, I underline the "and" ('kai') between A and B, and also the relevant pronoun.)
Mt 2:4 (BYZ) και συναγαγων παντας τους αρχιερεις και γραμματεις του λαου επυνθανετο παρ αυτων που ο χριστος γενναται
Mt 2:4 (AV) And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
Here, A is "the chief priests" and B is "the scribes of the people"; both terms are plural, and so could match the later 'autwn'. But it is clearly unreasonable to claim that Herod was demanding only
of the scribes and not also
of the chief priests, as to where Christ should be born. So this goes against your claim.
Mt 3:7 (BYZ) ιδων δε πολλους των φαρισαιων και σαδδουκαιων ερχομενους επι το βαπτισμα αυτου ειπεν αυτοις γεννηματα εχιδνων τις υπεδειξεν υμιν φυγειν απο της μελλουσης οργης
Mt 3:7 ¶ (AV) But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Here A is "Pharisees", B is "Saducees". The same argument applies as above. This case goes against your supposed rule.
Mt 4:24 (BYZ) και απηλθεν η ακοη αυτου εις ολην την συριαν και προσηνεγκαν αυτω παντας τους κακως εχοντας ποικιλαις νοσοις και βασανοις συνεχομενους και δαιμονιζομενους και σεληνιαζομενους και παραλυτικους και εθεραπευσεν αυτους
Mt 4:24 (AV) And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
Here we have not just two but four terms: A, B, C and D (I won't spell out the correspondences, as they're obvious). But the final "them" ('autous') surely refers to all four groups of sufferers as being healed by Jesus, not just those in group D, the paralytics. It would be extraordinarily mean of Jesus to heal those only, as your rule would seem to require!
Mt 9:35 (BYZ) και περιηγεν ο ιησους τας πολεις πασας και τας κωμας διδασκων εν ταις συναγωγαις αυτων και κηρυσσων το ευαγγελιον της βασιλειας και θεραπευων πασαν νοσον και πασαν μαλακιαν εν τω λαω
Mt 9:35 ¶ (AV) And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
A = "cities" and B = "villages". Did Jesus teach only in the synagogues of the villages, and not in those of the cities also? I very much doubt we are intended to understand this passage that way!
1 ¶ (AV) And when he had called unto [him] his twelve disciples, he gave them power [against] unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2 (AV) Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3 (AV) Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4 (BYZ) σιμων ο κανανιτης και ιουδας ισκαριωτης ο και παραδους αυτον
4 (AV) Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
5 ¶ (AV) These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
(Note: I give the Greek only for verse 4 in particular as matching the grammatical construct of interest, but the wider context is relevant for understanding.)
This case is clearly somewhat different from those above, and even more striking in its signficance. In verse 4, A is Simon the Canaanite and B is Judas Iscariot. But to which of those does the "him" ('auton') at the end refer? From the context, we realise that it is certainly not referring to Judas Iscariot, but nor does it refer to SImon the Canaanite either. The "him" in fact refers all the way back to the "he" of verse 1, which is of course Jesus. So your "rule" has fallen to pieces entirely, in this instance!
Mt 10:18 (BYZ) και επι ηγεμονας δε και βασιλεις αχθησεσθε ενεκεν εμου εις μαρτυριον αυτοις και τοις εθνεσιν
Mt 10:18 (AV) And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
Would Jesus' disciples give their testimony only to the kings (B), and not also to the governors (A), before whom they would be brought? Of course not! Again, your rule fails.
OK, I'm going to stop there. I've been searching through the NT in order, have only reached Matthew 10, but already I've found 6 examples that one way or another seem to match in grammatical context, yet disprove your rule, at least in the terms in which I have tried to capture it.
Of course I rather suspect you will object to this analysis, because it doesn't support your claim. I expect you will want to narrow down the specification of your "rule", in some way, so as to exclude all those cases above from consideration. Given that expectation, rather than spend any more of my time looking for texts matching the constructs according to the "rule" that I have supposed you meant, I invite you to define this rule more explicitly and precisely, in your own terms, so that it would be clear and unambiguous as to whether some passage fits the context in which the rule is supposed to apply. Once you've done that, we can explore the scriptures again, looking for cases that match, and see what we find about the meaning...
Edited by Mark Taunton, 11 August 2012 - 04:11 PM.