The author shows what interpretation in law is not and he offers a new hypothesis: The interpretation in law is a justified explicatory translation which meets Carnap’s criteria of an adequate interpretation. He identifies interpretation in law with a set of analytical methods which as such are value-neutral. They are always related to a particular legal system with its value background, and based on a particular philosophy of law. Beside legal erudition it is logical semantics that is an important support of interpretation. The author suggests a reconstruction of legal syllogism which is the methodological subject matter of interpretation.