It is a theological record. The Gospels were made after a series of theological reflections… after a crisis.
Yes, there are times when the word proskuneo is used as ‘kneel’, but the context tells us that time and again people worshipped Jesus. More than that, while Jesus corrected Satan, and while others (people and angels) corrected people for trying to worship them, JESUS accepted the worship – worship which Jesus Himself said was only to be given to God.
This is strong evidence that Jesus recognized His own deity.
Oddly enough, Paul says the opposite – that Jesus had emptied himself of any thing of the divine.
But, why do we take theology as a historical record? Jesus was not worshiped on earth, during his life, and I would most a strong case, not recognized as THE Messiah until long afterwards. Paul has some notion of what it means to be the anointed, that of a sacrifice, I believe but the idea of The Messiah is still a ways off from being developed. As usual, the ultimate Christian idea of the Messiah like most if not all Christian theology comes after a thesis and an antithesis. The Gospel is the synthesis.
To suggest that the Historical Jesus is absolutely reflected in the Gospels is to first create a sort of contradiction with some Pauline elements. Second, it doesn’t mesh well with logic or human history.