Its safe to say after all the different commentators have spoken, we can have them agree quickly:

that Kierkegaard was not a philosopher of the traditional sense.

Readers of Kierkegaard's work do not see clear lines of argument, he writes in a different name, then claims that it was him in directly and then critiques his own writing.!

One reason for this could be to allow and facilitate the reader to think beyond who actually wrote it i.e. Kierkegaard to a higher level.

In his work the logic is sound but not easily digested in some free like fashion.
I read his work and think this is deep and then on reading and reflection think no its quite light, in insight, strangely again on reflection I see it as even deeper than the first time!

Some cannot simply say he stood for.. and give a paragraph summary of the essence of his thinking.

Within his writing Kierkegaard's self recognition gives rise to a sequence as follows.

Aesthetic immediacy
finite common sense
Irony
ethics with irony as its incognito
Humour
religiousness with humour as its incognito
Immanenal religiousness (Socrates)
Paradox
Christianity.

“Humour is the last stage of existence- inwardness before faith”.

so
Irony to humour, to religious, to awakening, to Christianity.
Interesting?!