Translating ambiguous reason clauses

Luke 7:47 “Her many sins have been forgiven, for she loved much.” Both the UBS Handbook and SIL’s Translator’s Notes state that a literal rendering of this verse is likely to be misunderstood, and (since the point is theologically important) recommend restructuring (e.g. "the great love she has shown proves that her many sins have been forgiven" TEV). It appears that in most languages, any conjunction that allows the correct, EVIDENTIAL reading (‘her love is evidence of forgiveness’) can also express the incorrect, REAL-WORLD CAUSATION reading (‘her love caused the forgiveness’).
This reason clause is a type of “digression” (Wendland 1983, NOT), or parenthetical comment, also called a SUPPLEMENT (Potts 2005). Supplemental reason clauses in most languages allow at least three readings (Sweetser 1990). In addition to the real-world causation and epistemic readings mentioned above, they can also serve as SPEECH-ACT MODIFIERS (e.g. What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?). AT-ISSUE reason clauses, in which the causal relation is the main point being asserted in a statement or queried in a question, can be marked by conjunctions, prepositions (‘because of’), or special causal nominalization. They always express real-world causation, but (unlike supplemental reason clauses) can have ambiguous interpretations in the context of negation and quantifier words like 'few' and 'many'.
Replacing supplemental with at-issue reason clauses will not only affect the range of possible readings but also change the information packaging (prominence) of the causal meaning.