The "lost gospels" and "suppressed Scriptures" of the early church are the topic of books and publications fairly regularly. Entire academic careers have been built around examining those documents and the claim that they represent equally valid alternative source material on the life of Jesus.
I have been working on a project analyzing those alternative gospels and I came to notice an interesting thing: the Gospel of Mary -- as much of it as we have, at any rate -- never identifies Jesus by name1. How, exactly, is anyone sure that the "Savior" it often mentions is actually Jesus? Granted, some of the sayings recounted in it and the people are already familiar to us from other gospels about Jesus. But if we had no other sources about Jesus, we would hardly place this as a book about Jesus as it doesn't mention his name. Can the Gospel of Mary stand on its own as a historical source about Jesus under the circumstances? Her "Savior" is unnamed in the text we have available.
Oddly enough, the fragments we have of the Gospel of Peter are in the same situation: Jesus is never identified by name. The scenes here are far more familiar to us than those in the Gospel of Mary. In places, the Gospel of Peter portrays scenes that are recognizable from the canonical gospels. Still, if we did not have those canonical gospels, we might not have been certain that the Gospel of Peter is about Jesus, since again it does not mention the name of the "Lord" to which it refers. I think it is regrettable that the Gospel of Peter survives only in fragments; I suspect this one probably would be an interesting read if it had survived. The small part we have contains some legendary material in it (a talking cross), but is still an interesting read. In the meantime, those studying the Gospel of Peter are relying heavily on the canonical gospels to determine that the "Lord" being discussed is Jesus.
Again, interestingly, the portion we have of the Gospel of the Savior never actually mentions Jesus' name. That's three so far that I've found that never specifically identify Jesus by name. In this one, the narrative is carried on from a first-person point of view so that the "Lord" is the primary speaker. No other speaker or narrative in the text identifies the Lord, though again the similarities to other gospels make it fairly simple to determine that the person speaking -- and the "Lord" being spoken to -- is supposed to be Jesus.
To give a basis for comparison, all four of the canonical gospels have "Jesus" as the single most common word in the Gospels outside of background words such as "the", "and", etc. We can discuss the pros and cons of taking those gospels as historically accurate, but the texts do at least independently establish the identity of the person being discussed.
I consider it entirely possible that some of these lost gospels, if they survived in their entirety, might have mentioned that they were discussing Jesus of Nazareth, or even simply Jesus. Though even that is not entirely certain; even the shortest of the surviving texts is long enough that if it mentioned "Jesus" as often as a comparably long section of the canonical gospels, it should be expected to contain Jesus' name at least 10 times2. We can hope to find fuller texts of these lost gospels in the future. But I do have a question for the present, given the fragments that we have in hand: Do the academics who study these documents professionally consider it a problem, as far as their historical independence as sources for the life of Jesus, that the material we have for them never identifies the "Savior" or "Lord" as Jesus?
1 - Absence of "Jesus" in the texts mentioned here verified against Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament by Bart Erhman, 2003 Oxford University Press.
2 - Based on the prevalence of "Jesus" in the Gospel of Luke, which has the lowest prevalence of any canonical gospel at 91.7 occurrences per 10,000 words of text.