That is true. Yet, the term were used synonymously in the earlier days, so that’s why you might mix them up. A much more important distinction however is the distinction between antibodies and antibiotics. Whereas antibodies are produced by the body to destroy invading bacteria, antibiotics are chemically produced structures to do a similar thing. But it should be noted that antibodies are nowadays also chemically produced and provided by an antibodies supplier for the purpose of research. Humankind more and more tries to imitate the body’s mechanisms to fight viral and bacterial infections.
I suppose we could find some folks including naive students as here, considering these to be synonymous – but certainy not "in earier days" any more than now and not among folks of with technical knowledge of the subject.
The question did not address antibodies. Of course there’s a much greater distinction betwen antbodies and antibiotics. "Humankind" develops drugs constantly and no more by imitation of the body than before. I’m not aware of significant "chemical" synthesis of antibodies – though certainly of associated therapeutic ligands. Can you say more?
To the person who said "Why is it so hard?"
ok smartass, then why are the answers at ‘ResearchGate’ all over the map?
From the top ‘stackexchange’ answer, it appears that "antibiotic" was originally coined by Waksman for substances produced by a microorganism which in low concentration inhibit the growth of some other cellular microorganisms (including bacteria and fungi etc but *not* viruses), but the restriction to biological sources has been abandoned by many users of the term. In any case, even with the restriction to natural sources for antibiotic, antibacterial is not "more general" since it doesn’t include any antibiotic that is specifically just antifungal.