No, this never happened, for many reasons.

First, ancient peoples didn't have explosives. I'm sure some fantasy author has contrived a way for them to encounter one or put one together, but the fact is that there is no record of any ancient people deliberately causing an explosion. They did have ways to project flames: the Classical Greeks used a primitive flamethrower in a few sieges of the Peloponnesian War, and the Byzantines eventually developed a means of projecting a napalm-like substance. But these contraptions were never used in pitched battle for obvious reasons (they would be too slow and vulnerable in the open field).

Second, if they did exist, such weapons probably wouldn't do much damage to a battle line. Whether a hoplite phalanx was really so tight is debated; both Hellenistic pikemen and Roman legionaries seem to have regularly deployed with 6ft intervals between men, and we have no concrete evidence to suppose Greek hoplites didn't do the same. While they may have bunched tighter in certain circumstances, this never seems to be the default. And the extra space meant that it was possible for them to simply get out of the way. When Greek hoplites (and later Macedonian phalangites) encountered scythed chariots in battles against the Persians, they always seem to have been able to fall back and to the sides to make room for them, trapping them and neutralising their effect. If this was possible against chariots it would presumably have been possible against our hypothetical suicide bombers too.

Third, even if there were explosives and hoplites could not just dodge them, there is no way that an enemy formation would be able to take advantage of the losses they inflicted. They would have had to stay well back to avoid the explosives hurting their own side just as much as the enemy. In the time it took them to charge into the gap, the rear ranks of the normally quite deep hoplite phalanx (often 8-10 ranks deep, but sometimes as much as 25 or 50) would already have stepped forward to close it. The only way the attacker could gain a real advantage would be if they had many such suicide bombers to throw at the enemy, at which point we've well and truly left history and entered the realm of fantasy.

Finally, even if explosives could somehow be made and effectively used, suicide bombing would have gone directly against the prevailing Greek warrior ethos. The Spartan Aristodemos, who was shamed and cast out from society for being the only survivor of the battle of Thermopylai, tried to redeem himself at the battle of Plataia the next year by rushing at the Persian line in a berserk frenzy. Afterwards the Spartans judged that he did not deserve honours for his act, because he had disobeyed orders and left his place in the line. While the Greeks absolutely believed in the notion of the "beautiful death" in combat against the enemy, this was not to be foolishly sought, but to be faced as the ultimate price of being a member of one's community. It was something that citizens had to endure together, serving the common cause. You were not supposed to seek death but to do your job alongside your fellow warriors. The great achievement of battle was to prove yourself better than your fears and accept the consequences of danger; deliberate suicide was a quick escape that proved nothing.

By the way, regardless of what Total War: Rome II will tell you, "hoplite wall" is neither an ancient term nor a term modern scholars use to describe ancient tactics. Historically there is no such thing. At best this is just the game's way to describe what the Greeks called synaspismos ("shields together") or pyknosis (dense formation). These formations were rarely adopted precisely because inhibited mobility and flexibility; they tended to be used only in dire emergencies (to attempt a desperate breakthrough or to face down a cavalry charge).