CUP, Appendix and Declaration

In the Appendix and then Declarations to Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Kierkegaard does something pretty peculiar-- he disowns the text. He says that the work isn't worth being considered authoritative since he is but a mere humorist. Next, he comes back again as Kierkegaard as renounces his former renunciation (made under the pseudonymous Climacus). It all begs the question: "Why?"

Kierkegaard is certainly isn't saying that the theory is wrong, in fact, he never says that.  Nor does he say that it needs fixing. At no point does he say that it is a joke or comedy, as the work of a humorist, or that it needs work in any way.  So what is he doing?  It seems the only thing he could possibly be doing is to let the argument stand on it's own merit. To disown the idea is not to say it is wrong.  Instead, it is simply to let the argument itself stand by itself, inviting anyone to engage with the argument on it's own merits.

It's hard to say why Kierkegaard does this.  I think he does it because writing pseudonymously is tricky.He is writing as a non-believer to "so-called believers" who really are 'objective believers' to show them that if there's a Christian faith, they aren't a part of it.  However, all along it's Kierkegaard.  The dialectic doesn't progress the same written as theologian Kierkegaard, but nor does it have great credence from the humorist Climacus.  It looks really as if Kierkegaard is simply letting the argument stand on it's own merits. He allows for Climacus to disown the theory, then refutes that it shouldn't be taken seriously.  So rather than allow people to wonder if this is what Kierkegaard thought, or if he's saying that a non-believer who doesn't understand would say as Climacus did, he lets the idea go altogether.  Now, regardless of authorship, we are free to engage the text without such questions.  Such is my best guess.