Ah crap...what's misleading about it? Because he predicted the Messiah in general, not Levi specifically? If so I see your point. I was trying to convey that he came before Levi in the general wave of 17th century Jewish Messianism. It's hard sometimes when you're trying to get all the information into as short and pithy a paragraph as possible. :)

sory if I sounded unintentionally and unduly critical— it was a minor and prosaic point really- to the effect that Nathan survived Zevi by some years and hence that the “precedied” is somewhat misleading… (not a topic on which I am particularly knowledgable, so if I in my turn have been misleading, sorry about that too).